i       M,  : 

?*,.!« 


m 


THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF^ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY  . 

6  30.  7 

i  e  G  t 

•wo.  I  (,(,-  I  "8  I 


i' 


• 


- 


•- 

• 


• 


OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


NON  CIRCULATING 

CHECK  FOR  UNBOUND 
CIRCULATING  COPY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF 
GROWING  PIGS 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  INFLUENCE  OF 

THE  QUANTITY  OF  PROTEIN  CONSUMED 


BY  A.  D.  EMMETT  AND  H.  S.  GRINDLEY 

WITH   THE   COOPERATION    OF 

W.  E.  JOSEPH  AND  R.  H.  WILLJAMS 


URBANA,  ILLINOIS,  MARCH,  1914 


CONTENTS  OF  BULLETIN  No.  168 

Page 

1.  INTRODUCTION. — Object.     Brief  statement   of  findings   of  other  investi- 

gators         85 

2.  PLAN  OP  EXPERIMENT 86 

3.  WEIGHTS,  COMPOSITION,  AND  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  OF  FEEDS 87 

\.    LIVE  WEIGHTS  AND  AVERAGE  DAILY  GAINS. 90 

5.  PHYSICAL   CONDITION 91 

6.  BLOOD   EXAMINATION 92 

7.  SLAUGHTER   TESTS 94 

(a)  Post-Mortem  Examination 95 

(b)  Measurements  and  Weights  of  Kidneys 96 

(c)  Judging  of  Dressed  Carcasses 97 

(d)  Judging  of  Cross-Section  of  Half-Carcasses 98 

(e)  Measurements  of  Cross-Sections  of  Half  -Carcasses 99 

(f)  Weights  of  Pigs,  Dressed  Carcasses,  and  Cuts  of  Pork 101 

(g)  Weights  of  Boneless  Meat,  Skeleton,  Fats,  and  Offal 102 

(h)  Weights  of  Blood  and  Eespiratory  and  Digestive  Organs 105 

(i)      Weights  of  Heart,  Liver,  Spleen,  Pancreas,  Gall  Bladder,  and 

Tongue   107 

(j)     Weights   of  Urinary   Organs   and   Organs   of   Central    Nervous 

System   10S 

(k)     Weights  of  Miscellaneous  Parts — Head,  Feet,  Tail,  Skin,  Hair, 

and    Toes 109 

8.  PHYSICAL  MEASUREMENTS  OF  LEG  BONES — Weights,    Lengths,    Diame- 

ters, Breaking  Strengths,  Moduli  of  Rupture,  Section  Moduli 110 

9.  SUMMARY   117 

10.  CONCLUSIONS   120 

11.  APPENDIX: 

(a)  Live  Weights,  Gains,  and  Amounts  of  Feed  Consumed 122 

(b)  Amounts  of  Digestible  Nutrients  Consumed 125 

(c)  Illustrations 128 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF 
GROWING  PIGS 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  INFLUENCE  OF 

THE  QUANTITY  OF  PROTEIN  CONSUMED 

BY  A.  D.  EMMETT,  ASSISTANT  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAL  NUTRITION,  AND 
K.   S.  GRINDLEY,  CHIEF  IN  ANIMAL  CHEMISTRY 

WITH   THE   COOPEr.ATION   OF 

W.  E.  JOSEPH  AND  R.  H.  WILLIAMS 

INTRODUCTION 

The  ultimate  object  of  the  investigation  of  which  this  publica- 
tion is  a  partial  report  was  to  determine  the  influence  of  different 
quantities  of  protein  upon  the  nutrition  of  young  growing  pigs.  In 
this  particular  bulletin  are  given  the  experimental  data  relating  to 
the  live  weights  and  the  physical  condition  of  the  animals,  the  com- 
parative weights  of  the  various  parts  and  organs  of  their  bodies,  and 
the  relative  sizes  and  breaking  strengths  of  their  leg  bones. 

The  results  of  a  large  number  of  feeding  experiments  carried 
on  in  this  country  show  clearly  that  the  development  of  the  bodies  of 
growing  pigs  can  be  directly  influenced  by  the  feeds  consumed.  It 
has  been  found  that  feeds  rich  in  protein  are  more  favorable  to  the 
normal  development  of  young  swine  than  those  that  are  poor  in  pro- 
tein, and  that  animals  fed  a  narrow  ration  have  more  blood,  larger 
vital  organs,  and  larger,  stronger  bones  of  a  higher  ash  content  than 
those  fed  a  ration  the  nutritive  ratio  of  which  is  wide. 

From  these  earlier  experiments,  however,  it  was  impossible  to 
tell  whether  the  beneficial  effects  of  the  high-protein  rations  were 
due  to  the  amounts  of  protein  or  to  the  amounts  of  mineral  matter 
consumed,  for  the  rations  containing  the  greater  quantities  of  the  one 
contained  also  the  greater  quantities  of  the  other.  That  the  mineral 
matter  played  an  important  part  is  evident  from  the  results  of  later 
experiments  which  showed  that  some  of  the  abnormal  bodily  condi- 
tions occasioned  by  a  ration  poor  in  protein  can  be  corrected  by  feed- 
ing ground  bone,  calcium  phosphate,  or  wood  ashes.  This  has  been 
further  proven  by  the  investigations  of  Hart,  McCollum,  and  Fuller1, 
which  demonstrated  that  if  the  ration  of  growing  pigs  is  rich  in 
protein  and  low  in  calcium  phosphate,  the  animals  make  small  gains, 
are  in  poor  physical  condition,  and  have  light  bones  of  low  mineral 
content  and  breaking  strength.  On  the  other  hand,  if  in  addition 
to  a  liberal  supply  of  protein  the  ration  contains  large  quantities  of 
calcium  pliosphate,  the  pigs  make  good  gains,  are  in  normal  condition, 
and  have  bones  of  normal  composition  and  breaking  strength. 
JWis.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.,  Res.  Bui.  1,  1909. 

85 


86 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


In  the  light  of  the  investigations  cited  above,  it  was  thought 
that  if  growing  pigs  were  given  a  liberal  amount  of  calcium  phos- 
phate in  connection  with  small,  medium,  and  large  quantities  of 
protein,  valuable  data  would  be  obtained  as  to  the  quantities  of  pro- 
tein that  are  necessary  for  their  normal  development. 

PLAN  OF  EXPERIMENT 

At  the  time  of  weaning,  October  30,  1909,  fourteen  thrifty  Berk- 
shire pigs  were  selected  from  the  Station  herd,  under  the  direction 
of  Professor  Dietrich,  formerly  of  this  department.  On  December 
25,  twelve  of  these  animals  were  divided  into  three  lots  of  four  pigs 
each  in  such  a  way  that  the  lots  were  as  similar  as  possible  in  regard 
to  age,  ancestry,  weight,  and  condition.  On  the  same  date  the  two 
remaining  pigs  were  slaughtered  and  analyzed  for  controls. 

TABLE  1. —  DESCRIPTION  OF  PIGS 


Ancestry 

Date 
far- 
rowed 
1909 

Lot  I 
Low  protein 

Lot  II 

Medium 
protein 

Lot  in 

High  protein 

Lot  IV 
Control 

A.geat 
close 
of  ex- 
peri- 
ment 

Sire 

Dam 

Pig 

Sex 

Pig 

Sex 

Pig 

Sex 

Pig 

Sex 

Abron 
Abron 
Abron 
Beckon 
Beckon 
Beckon 
Beckon 
Baron  ] 
Duke  V 
131st  | 

90 
79 
19 
47 
77 
26 
44 
13 

32 

Aug.  22 
Aug.  22 
Aug.  21 
Aug.  27 
Aug.  21 
Aug.  20 
Aug.  19 
Sept.13 

Aug.  25 

1 

41 

barrow 
sow 

5 

barrow 

days 
300 

14» 

16 

barrow 
barrow 

299 

2l 

barrow 

62 
8 

barrow 
barrow 

299 

280 
297 

26 

44 

barrow 
barrow 

31 

barrow 

7 

barrow 

13 
15 

barrow 
barrow 

.  . 

...... 

JDied  before  close  of  experiment. 
2Kemoved  from  lot  after  Pig  2  died. 

During  the  experimental  feeding  period,  which  began  December 
25  and  continued  twenty-five  weeks,  Lot  I  was  kept  on  a  low-protein 
ration;  Lot  II,  on  a  medium-protein  ration;  and  Lot  III,  on  a  high- 
protein  ration.  The  feeds  used  were  ground  corn,  blood  meal,  and  cal- 
eium  phosphate.  The  animals  were  fed  individually  twice  daily,  at 
7  a.  m.  and  4  p.  m.  All  of  them  received,  per  100  pounds  live  weight, 
approximately  the  same  amounts  of  the  ground  corn.  The  calcium 
phosphate  was  so  fed  that  the  rations  of  Lots  I,  II,  and  III  contained 
respectively,  11.03,  9.65,  and  8.73  grams  of  phosphorus2  per  100 
pounds  live  weight.  Of  the  blood  meal,  those  of  Lot  II  received  more 

2  According  to  the  results  of  Hart,  McCollum,  and  Fuller,  calcium  phosphates 
are  as  efficient  in  supplementing  rations  low  in  phosphorus  as  are  organic  phos- 
phorus compounds.  These  investigators  state  that  young  growing  pigs  should  re- 
ceive per  day  at  least  6  to  10  grams  of  phosphorus  per  100  pounds  live  weight. 


1914]  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  87 

than  those  of  Lot  I,  and  those  of  Lot  III,  more  than  those  of  Lot  II. 
Thus,  per  100  pounds  live  weight,  the  pigs  of  the  three  lots  received 
the  same  amounts  of  corn  protein,  but  different  amounts  of  blood-meal 
protein,  the  percentages  of  corn  protein  and  blood-meal  protein  in  the 
total  protein  received  by  each  lot  being  as  follows :  Lot  I,  corn  pro- 
tein, 50  percent,  blood-meal  protein,  50  percent ;  Lot  II,  corn  protein, 
20  percent,  blood-meal  protein,  80  percent ;  and  Lot  III,  corn  protein, 
14  percent,  blood-meal  protein,  86  percent.  Five  grams  of  salt  and 
35  grams  of  charcoal  were  offered  to  each  pig  once  a  week,  but  in  most 
instances  no  special  desire  for  them  was  shown.  The  animals  had 
free  access  to  water  at  all  times,  and  the  weight  of  the  water  drunk 
was  recorded  for  each  lot,  but  not  for  each  animal.  Enough  water 
was  added  to  the  feeds  to  make  a  thick  slop. 

The  three  lots  of  pigs  were  kept  separate,  but  the  animals  be- 
longing to  the  same  lot  were  allowed  to  run  together.  Each  lot  was 
housed  in  a  pen  approximately  15  x  10  feet  in  size,  which  was  paved 
with  brick  and  provided  with  a  movable  wooden  floor  5  feet  square, 
upon  which  the  pigs  could  lie.  Pine  shavings  were  used  for  bedding. 
During  the  first  half  of  the  experiment  the  animals  were  weighed 
once  a  week,  but  later,  three  times  a  week,  on  successive  days.  Dur- 
ing the  last  half  of  the  experiment,  additional  exercise  was  given 
them  by  driving  them  once  daily  up  and  down  a  270-foot  paved 
alley. 


WEIGHTS,    COMPOSITION,   AND   DIGESTIBLE   NUTRIENTS 

OF  FEEDS 

The  quantities  of  digestible  nutrients  in  the  feeds  of  the  three 
lots  of  pigs  were  calculated  from  the  coefficients  of  digestibility  given 
by  Henry  and  Kellner  for  ground  corn,  i.  e.,  dry  substance,  91.0; 
protein,  85.0;  carbohydrates,  92.4;  and  fat,  74.6;  and  by  Lindsey1 
for  dried  blood,  i.  e.,  dry  substance,  84.0;  protein,  84.0;  and  fat, 
98.0. 

Pigs  8  and  15  were  not  good  feeders.  They  went  off  feed  several 
times,  and  as  it  was,  therefore,  necessary  to  reduce  their  portions  of 
corn  meal  and  blood  meal  considerably,  the  amounts  of  feeds  consumed 
by  these  animals  were  somewhat  lower  than  those  consumed  by  the 
two  other  pigs  in  their  respective  lots. 


'These  values  were  for  sheep.  The  only  experiment  bearing  upon  the  di- 
gestibility of  blood  meal  for  swine  that  wre  were  able  to  find  was  one  quoted 
in  Henry's  "Feeds  and  Feeding."  In  that  experiment  the  coefficient  of  di- 
gestibility of  the  protein  was  given  as  72,  but  the  blood  meal  used  was  hard 
:in<l  had  been  overheated.  Wildt,  in  experiments  with  sheep,  found  that  such 
meal  is  less  digestible  than  meal  that  has  been  properly  prepared. 


88 


BULLETIN  No.  108 


[March, 


From  the  standpoint  of  feed  consumption,  the  most  represen- 
tative animals  were  Nos.  1  of  Lot  I,  5  and  7  of  Lot  II,  and  16  and 
13  of  Lot  III.  The  average  amounts  of  nutrients  consumed  daily 
per  100  pounds  live  weight  by  these  pigs  were  as  follows:  diges- 
tible protein,  0.32  pound  by  Lot  I,  0.70  pound  by  Lot  II,  and  0.94 
pound  by  Lot  III;  carbohydrates,  1.55  pounds  by  Lot  I,  1.44  pounds 
by  Lot  II,  and  1.32  pounds  by  Lot  III ;  and  fat,  0.061  pound  by 
Lot  1,  0.059  pound  by  Lot  II,  and  0.056  pound  by  Lot  III.  The 
average  energy  values  of  the  digestible  nutrients  per  100  pounds  live 
weight  were:  for  Pig  1,  3.79  therms;  for  Pigs  5  and  7,  4.28  therms; 
and  for  Pigs  16  and  13,  4.49  therms.  Pig  1  consumed  daily  per  100 
pounds  live  weight  71.24  grams  of  ash,  including  the  added  calcium 
phosphate;  Pigs  5  and  7,  64.34  grams;  and  Pigs  16  and  13,  59.06 
grams.  The  total  phosphorus  values  for  the  same  animals  on  the  same 
basis  were  11.03  grams  for  Lot  I,  9.65  grams  for  Lot  II,  and  8.73 
grams  for  Lot  III. 

The  average  nutritive  ratios  for  the  whole  experiment  were 
narrow,  being  1 :5.3  for  Lot  I,  1 :2.2  for  Lot  II,  and  1 :1.5  for  Lot 
III.  The  corresponding  values  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment 
were  1 :8.2,  1 :3.3,  and  1 :2.3,  and  those  at  the  end  of  the  experiment, 
1 :3.1,  1 :1.4,  and  1 :0.8.  The  narrowing  of  the  nutritive  ratio  as  the  ex- 
periment progressed  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  quantities  of  corn 
meal  fed  per  100  pounds  live  weight  were  continuously  decreased 
while  the  amounts  of  blood  meal  either  remained  constant  or  were 
slightly  increased. 


TABLE  2. — CHEMICAL  COMPOSITION  OF  COMPOSITE  FEEDS 
(Eesults  expressed  in  percent  of  fresh  substance) 


Feed 

Time  used 

Dry 

sub- 
stance 

Protein 

(Nx6.25) 

Fat 

Carbo- 
hydrates 

Ash 

Phos- 
phorus 

Ground  corn 

j  >      » 

j  >      >  » 

}  »            7  > 

Dee.  20-Jan.  28 
Jan.  29-Mar.  11 
Mar.  12-May  13 
May  14-June  20 

86.58 
86.30 
86.52 
86.26 

7.90 
7.95 
8.17 
8.16 

3.91 
3.89 
3.95 
2.33 

73.54 
73.16 
73.17 
74.52 

1.23 
1.30 
1.23 
l.£3 

0.251 
0.256 
0.254 
0.248 

Average  .... 

Dec.  20-June  20 

86.41 

8.04 

3.52 

73.60 

1.25 

0.252 

Blood  meal.  . 

?  »       >  » 

>  '       j  ) 

Dee.  20-Jan.  28 
Jan.  29-May  17 
May  19-June  20 

88.57 
89.43 
90.51 

83.79 
85.97 
87.39 

0.38 
0.37 
0.46 

1.73 

0.90 
0.36 

2.66 
2.19 
2.30 

0.186 
0.153 
0.148 

Average  

Dec.  20-June  20 

89.50 

85.72 

0.40 

1.00 

2.38 

0.162 

Tankage1.  .  . 

May  17-May  19  1    89.15 

56.50 

10.55 

.... 

15.15 

1.221 

JUsed  in  place  of  blood  meal  for  two  days,  equivalent  quantities  of  protein 
being  weighed  out. 


1014] 


INFU:KN<  E  OF  PKOTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


89 


'C  g.2 

4*  ^  43 

CC  00  OS 
1C  to'  TT 

CM  CO  CM          CM 

1C  1C  I—         tO 

CM  CM  CM          CM 

rH  rH  rH           rH 

6    03  V. 

-22  So 
•2  g  a3 

g    OS  O  1C 
£    b-  OS  to 

CM  T}<  00          -* 

CO  CM  00            rH 

rH  00  CM          CO 
TjH  1C  O          CO 

^  co"  co  oi 

^-*CO            T}< 

^^^          "** 

ri"g 

'3 

°D 

to  to  CM       oo 

1C  1C  t-          OQ 

CM  CM  CM         CM 
CM  CM  CM         CM 

01 

CO  CO  CM          CO 

CO  CO  CO          CO 

,      GO 

S|, 

2  co    •    • 

1C  1C  iH         O 

to  to  t~      o 

CO  CO  tO          •**< 
t--  t^.  rH          1C 

<a>  rH 

OJOSt-        OS 

QO  OO  OO          QO 

1 

g    CM      •     • 

tO  CM  00          00 
CM  Tjt  OJ          00 

1C  t-  -HH          CM 

-*  to  co       oo 

Is  •  • 

1C  CO  CO          O 

to  to  ic       to 

1C  to  1C         1C 

Digestible  nutrients 

Is 

PH 

^  to  to  •* 

OS  OS  CO          !>. 

1C  1C  1C         1C 

1C  t^  CM         U5 

1C  1C  1C         1C 
000        0 

~»  o  o  o 

o  o  o      o 

o  o  o      o 

6  ,  £ 
si**-! 

at    1C  CM  t~- 

,2    1C  CO  O 

1C  CO  OS         OS 
•*  •*  !M          CO 

os  ic  co      at 

CM  CC  CM         CM 

rH  rH  rH          rH 

rH  rH  rH          rH 

1C 
N 

X 
fl 

'3 
o 

03 
O 

EH 

,2    CO  CM  CM 

rH  OJ  >C          00 

t-  to  to      to 

CO  tO  OJ          OS 

cs  os  i-      oo 

~  d  o  o 

000         0 

O  O  O        C- 

o  "ol 

O    03 

S  s 

ai    tO  CO  CM 

,Q     rH  rH  rH 

t~  1C  CM         Tfl 
1C  1C  1C         1C 

O  CO  OO         t~ 
CO  OO  to         h- 

"••»  o  o*  o 

o  o  o      o 

o  o  o      o 

Ground 
corn 

£    to  CO  CM 

^«CO          ^ 

CC  CO   rH           CM 

~»    O  O  O 

o  o  o      o 

o  o  o      o 

II  J 

C,:  t~  os  oo 
Ja  os  os  co 

t~  CO  1C          00 
CM  CM  O           rH 

•*  CO  CO         O 
CO  ^  rH          CO 

~*    rH  rH  rH 

Cv]  <M  CM          (M 

(M  CM  CM         CM 

to 
o> 

03 

3 

o 

,2    1C  1C  t~ 

OS  OO  tO          OO   lo  rH  l>-          O* 

"^    CM  CM  rH 

CM  CM'  CM       CM' 

CO  CO  CM         CM 

5    03 

«  S 

o!    C]  CO  00 

Jg    CM  rH  rH 

00  to  CM         1C 
t-  t-  I-          !>. 

O  •*  CM         1C 

rH  rH  OJ           O 

"•»  o  o  o 

O  O  O         O 

rH  rH  O           r-l 

1=1  a 

3   C 
0   0 

O 

si    OS  O  OOf 
,2    CM  **  1C  i 

Tf<  rH  rH          1C 

irH  rH  OS          O 

CM  O  CM         rH 
OS  O  OO         OJ 

~"    CM  C$  rH  ' 

*CM  CM  rH         cq 

rH  CM  rH         rH 

'3 

Is 
g 

rH  CO  ^ 

1C  t-  00 

£>  CO    1C 
r-l  rH   rH              | 

o 

>H 

i 
rH 

03 

bC 
M                        OS 

rH                          »-• 
9 

a 

3                   r 

—  (                   ^ 
* 

fa^  "^ 

rrj    Q  C5 

(-S     »F^     £ft 


CS  ®  q~ 
«S  "*^  *03 
03  ^  !-, 


03  <4H 
S    .. 


aj   fl  pQ  ^H 
iy  *IH         cc 

"So   w   p 
"t5  ai  "t^  ^"* 

ra    j3    M    m 

•2"H.2 

*"  -«  S 
^rw  ^  ^* 

®    ?f3    03 


5,  ^  .g  «  2 

C     rt  —  *?_  M 


^2      CC 


IlliS 

S  I53  S  _ 


90 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


March, 


LIVE  WEIGHTS  AND  AVERAGE  DAILY  GAINS 

Attention  should  again  be  called  to  the  fact  that  the  pigs  used 
in  this  investigation  were  young,  growing  animals  weighing  on  an 
average  only  51  pounds  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment,  and  that 
they  were  housed  in  small  pens  paved  with  brick.  The  reader  is 
cautioned  against  assuming  that  similar  results  would  have  been  ob- 
tained if  the  pigs  had  been  more  mature. 

The  live  weights  of  the  pigs  during  the  different  periods  of  the 
experiment  are  given  in  Table  4.  All  of  the  animals  of  Lot  I  re- 
mained small  and  underdeveloped,  and  three  of  them  died  before 
the  close  of  the  experiment.  Pig  1,  which  was  the  only  animal  on 
the  low-protein  ration  that  did  live  to  the  end  of  the  experiment, 
increased  less  in  live  weight  than  those  of  the  other  lots  except  No. 
8.  The  average  daily  gain  of  Pig  1  for  the  entire  experiment  was 
0.64  pound,  while  that  of  the  pigs  of  Lot  II  was  0.85  pound,  and 
that  of  the  animals  of  Lot  III,  0.90  pound. 

There  was  no  significant  difference  between  the  average  live 
weights  and  the  average  daily  gains  of  the  pigs  of  Lots  II  and  III. 

TABLE  4. — LIVE  WEIGHTS  AND  GAINS 
(Kesults  expressed  in  pounds) 


Animal 

Lot 

Weight 
at 

Weight  at 
beginning 

t\f  ov 

Weight   at 
close  of 

Total  gain 
from  begin- 
ning to 

Average 
daily 

weaning 

us.  ex- 
periment 

experiment 

close, 
174  days 

gain 

1 

I 

31.0 

67.9 

180.1 

112.2 

0.64 

3 

I 

30.0 

51.8 

74.01 

(22.2)1 

i 

2 

I 

25.0 

35.9 

35.3' 

(-0.6)' 

2 

4 

I 

27.0 

42.4 

44.0s 

(1.6)' 

8 

Total.... 

I 

113.0 

198.0 

.... 

.... 

5 

II 

31.0 

62.9 

249.4 

186.5 

1.07 

7 

II 

27.0 

49.8 

199.6 

149.8 

0.86 

C 

II 

31.0 

34.9 

47.84 

(12.9)4 

i 

8 

II 

28.0 

49.4 

157.0 

107.6 

o'.62 

Total.... 

IT 

117.0 

197.0 

606.0 

443.9 

0.85 

16 

III 

34.0 

62.8 

248.4 

185.6 

1.06 

13 

III 

26.0 

44.9 

189.3 

144.4 

0.82 

14 

III 

22.0 

42.4                  66.4* 

(24.0)4 

4 

15 

III 

35.0 

62.9                203.7 

140.8 

V.80 

Total.... 

III 

117.0 

213.0 

641.4 

470.8 

0.90 

'Pig  3  removed  on  125th  clay  of  experiment;  died  a  week  later. 

2Pig  2  removed  on  41st  day  of  experiment. 

"Pig  4  died  the  night  before  experiment  closed. 

4In  order  to  keep  all  lots  comparable,  Pigs  6  and  14  were  removed  soon  after 
Pig  2  died,  and  their  gains  have  not  been  included  in  the  total  for  their  re- 
spective lots. 


1914]  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  91 

PHYSICAL  CONDITION 

As  formerly  stated,  the  three  lots  of  pigs  were  kept  under  con- 
ditions as  much  alike  as  possible  in  every  respect  except  as  to  the  quan- 
tity and  quality  of  the  protein  consumed.  The  pens,  the  amount  of 
room  for  exercising,  the  ventilation,  and  the  sanitary  conditions  were 
alike  for  all. 

Notes  as  to  the  condition  and  appearance  of  the  pigs  were  taken 
at  the  beginning  of,  and  at  frequent  intervals  thruout,  the  experiment. 
The  rating  of  the  twelve  pigs  of  Lots  I,  II,  and  III  at  the  beginning 
of  the  experiment,  from  the  feeder's  standpoint  in  regard  to  conforma- 
tion, condition,  thrift,  etc.,  was  as  follows: 

Pig  No.  ...1     5      16      15      8    3     7    4     14     13    2      6 
Lot  No.  ...I    II    III     III    II    I    II    I    III    III    I    II 

Pig  1  was  a  rather  exceptional  individual  with  respect  to  vigor 
and  thrift,  while  Pigs  2  and  6  were  the  poorest  animals  in  the  ex- 
periment. Pigs  16  and  15  were  not  very  widely  different,  and  both 
were  inferior  to  Pig  5.  Pig  3  was  nearly  equal  to  Pig  8  and  dis- 
tinctly superior  to  Pig  7.  Pigs  4  and  14  were  inferior  to  Pig  7  and 
only  slightly  better  than  Pig  13. 

The  physical  condition  of  the  pigs  as  the  experiment  progressed 
was  as  follows : 

Pig  2  of  Lot  I  was  removed  on  the  forty-first  day  of  the  experi- 
ment, as  it  had  become  sluggish  and  lacked  appetite,  walked  with 
difficulty,  and  appeared  to  be  starving.  It  died  on  the  forty-sixth 
day  of  the  experiment. 

Pig  3  of  Lot  I  made  fairly  good  gains  up  to  February  5.  It 
then  began  to  lose  its  appetite,  appeared  drowsy,  and  became  stiff 
in  the  hind  quarters.  On  April  30  this  animal  was  in  such  a  bad 
condition  that  it  was  removed  and  given  a  different  treatment  to 
see  if  it  would  recover.  It  died  on  May  5. 

Unlike  Pigs  2  and  3,  Pig  4  of  Lot  I  was  very  active  and  never 
showed  signs  of  being  stiff.  Like  them,  however,  this  animal  also 
was  in  poor  condition  during  the  latter  part  of  the  experiment.  About 
February  5  it  began  to  lose  its  appetite,  its  hair  came  off,  and  it 
stopped  growing  entirely.  During  the  last  two  weeks  of  the  experi- 
ment it  was  practically  fasting  and  it  was  plainly  seen  that  it  could 
not  live  long.  It  died  June  19. 

The  remaining  pig  of  this  lot  (No.  I),  during  the  latter  half  of 
the  experiment  showed  distinct  symptoms  of  stiffness  in  all  parts.  It 
walked  and  stood  with  difficulty,  and  occasionally  showed  signs  of 
drowsiness. 

When  Pig  2  died,  Pigs  6  and  14  were  removed  from  Lots  II  and 
III,  respectively,  in  order  to  make  the  three  lots  directly  comparable 
from  the  standpoint  of  merit  of  the  animals,  number  of  animals,  and 


92  BULLETIN  No.  168  [March, 

area  per  head  in  each  pen.  On  the  whole,  the  remaining  pigs  of  Lots 
II  and  III  continued  thrifty  and  in  good  condition  for  animals  kept 
in  small  pens  for  an  extended  period  of  time. 

Pig  6  of  the  medium-protein  lot  made  the  smallest  gain  in  weight 
and  was  the  most  unthrifty  individual  of  the  lot.  Altho  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  experiment  this  animal  was  rated  below  Pig  2,  its  litter 
mate,  it  gradually  surpassed  Pig  2  in  every  way.  Up  to  the  time 
that  Pig  2  was  removed,  Pig  6  gained  about  0.3  pound  per  day.  The 
other  pigs  of  the  medium-protein  lot  were  not  sluggish  like  those  of 
Lot  I,  but  they  were  somewhat  stiff  in  the  hind  quarters  at  times 
during  very  cold  weather. 

The  pigs  of  the  high-protein  lot  were  particularly  active,  tho 
occasionally  during  very  cold  weather,  like  the  pigs  of  the  medium- 
protein  lot,  they  became  stiff  in  the  hind  quarters.  Pigs  13  and  14 
were  not  as  thrifty  as  Pigs  15  and  16.  Up  to  the  time  that  Pig  2 
was  removed,  Pigs  13  and  14  gained  0.6  pound  per  day,  and  Pigs  15 
and  16,  1.0  pound.  The  main  reason  for  removing  Pig  14  instead  of 
Pig  13  at  the  time  that  Pig  2  was  removed,  was  the  fact  that  Pig  13 
was  a  litter  mate  of  Pig  7  of  Lot  II. 

The  general  appearance  of  Pigs  1  and  4  of  Lot  I,  5  and  7  of  Lot 
II,  and  16  and  13  of  Lot  III,  is  shown  by  Figures  1,  2,  and  3  in  the 
Appendix,  pages  128  to  130. 

BLOOD  EXAMINATION 

Towards  the  end  of  the  experiment,  examinations  were  made  of 
the  blood  of  all  of  the  pigs  in  order  that  the  data  so  obtained  might 
be  used  as  an  aid  in  determining  the  comparative  physical  conditions 
of  the  animals.  Three  of  these  tests  were  made  on  Pigs  1  and  16,  and 
two  on  each  of  Nos.  4,  5,  7,  13,  and  15. 

Only  the  count  of  the  total  number  of  white  blood  cells,  or  leu- 
cocytes, showed  any  definite  distinction  between  the  lots.  In  the  dif- 
ferential count  of  the  white  blood  cells  and  the  count  of  the  red 
blood  cells,  the  differences  within  the  lots  were  as  great  as,  or  greater 
than,  the  lot  differences.  The  average  of  the  white  blood  cells  for  Lot 
I  was  26,222 ;  that  for  Lot  II,  19,339 ;  and  that  for  Lot  III,  20,405. 
The  number  of  leucocytes  in  the  blood  of  Pigs  1  and  4  of  the  low- 
protein  lot  was  unusually  large  and  may  have  indicated  an  abnormal 
condition. 


INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


O    TO 

o  o  o 

CO 

0  0 

e 

CO 

o  o 

m 

0  0 

0 

0  0 

o 

m 

0  0  O 

ca 

0  0 

0 

0  0 

0 

(N 

1 

o  -2 

O  rH  O 

0 

0  0 

0 

0 

co  in 

m 

rH  CO 

CM 

0  O 

0 

CO 

CM  CM  rH 

rH 

CO  rH 

CM 

0  0 

0 

rH 

t* 

$ 

S  * 

CO  •  — 

0  CM  0 

rH 

CD  CM 

TH 

CO 

TH    TH 

03 

(M  0 

rH 

CM  CM 

CO 

^ 

CO  CM  CM 

CO 

to  o 

00 

T*   0 

CO 

TH 

if 

o3  A 
OQ  &* 

000 

0 

0  0 

0 

0 

rH  O 

0 

0  0 

o 

OO 

0 

0 

O  O  O 

0 

O  rH 

0 

oo 

0 

0 

S 
f 

rt 

49 
B 

.2r2 

oo  co  co 

CO 

0  TH 

t- 

o 

CO  <M 

03 

0  TH 

t> 

00  TH 

co 

TH 

CO  TH  O 

^ 

CO  CM 

» 

CO  CM 

03 

CO 

& 
<r) 

O 

0-0 

o 

COTHTH 

m 

rH  0 

0 

co 

rH  CM 

rH 

TH  10 

TH 

co  co 

co 

co 

CM  TH  TH 

co 

CM  CO 

CO 

TH  in 

"* 

CO 

OQ 

a 

a 

o 

•4-> 

'3    Bj 

TH  CM  CM 

CD 

CM  CO 

0 

CO  TH 

CD 

0  CO 

03 

TH  0 

^ 

OO  O  CO 

m 

CO  O 

00 

co  o 

„ 

O3 

<H 

O 

O 

"S 

S* 

rH  CM  CM 

CM 

rH  rH 

fH 

CM 

CM  CM 

d 

TH  rH 

CM  rH 

rH 

CM 

rH  CM  0 

tH 

IO  CM 

co 

rH  rH 

rH 

cc 

1 

6 

<o 
Pi 

flj 

TH  0  O 

m 

00  0 

0 

CM  00 

o 

CM  CM 

„ 

00  00 

CO 

CD 

CO  00  O 

m 

O  CM 

CD 

00  CO 

00 

1 

d 

•  (H 

"S 

o  13 

TH  rH  rH 

pi 

CM  O 

rH 

d 

CM  rH 

oi 

co  o 

iH 

rH  0 

: 

rH 

CM  O  rH 

rH 

CO  0 

rH 

O  O 

0 

CO 

£ 

a 
o 

INU 

O  TH  O 

m 

CM  O 

CD 

CD 

CO  CO 

<D 

TH  10 

03 

00  CJ 

in 

t> 

o  oo  co 

rH 

co  oo 

00 

0  0 

in 

in 

X 

"S 
s 

c 

^  S  ^* 

CO  rH  CO 

CO 

TH  rH 

CM 

CM 

CO  rH 

CO 

rH  O 

0 

rH  r-i 

rH 

rH 

rH  rH  O 

rH 

CM  O 

rH 

SO  rH 

rH 

rH 

••» 
& 

•rH 

S 

O  GO  TH 

rH 

CO  0 

00 

TH 

00  CO 

CO  CO 

10 

0  TH 

CM 

CO 

CM  O  CM 

„ 

oo  in 

co 

«O  0 

CO 

03 

-H 

Q 

I  If 

TH  CM  CO 

TH  in  m 

§ 

rH  TH 

CO  CO 

co 

rH 

O3  TH 
CO  b- 

S 

CO  0 
IO  CO 

00 

m 

CO  OJ 

in  in 

CD 

m 

CO 

00  03  rH 
CD  CD  b- 

03 
CO 

co  in 
in  co 

03 

in 

co  in 
in  m 

CD 
IO 

rH 
CO 

o 

-M 

6  *• 

o  oo  oo 

OJ 

co  oo 

00 

co  o 

00 

to  oo 

OJ 

0  O 

m 

CO 

CM  00  TH 

in 

co  eo 

10 

00  0 

00 

1 

O      ^H       O 

CO  rH  in 
TH  CO  CO 

CD 

CO 

CO  CM 

m  co 

§ 

00 

TH 

00  b- 

rH  rH 

rH 

O  rH 

co  co 

rH 

eo 

CO  CO 

in 

CO 

00 
CM 

CO  rH  CM 
CM  CM  CM 

CO 

rH  b- 

CO  CM 

O3 
CM 

rH  b- 

eo  co 

CO 

00 

1 

13 

a 

•  FH 

11 

> 

CO  CM  CO 

CO  rH  CM 

in  b-  b- 

CO  b-  O3 

CO 
0 
0 

t> 

0  0 
CO  CM 
rH  b- 
00 

TH 

in 

CD 

CO  0 
rH  CO 

co  m 
m  oo 

00 
00 
0 
t> 

0  0 
TH  CM 

in  in 

CO  O3 

o 

CO 

m 

CD 

0  0 
OO  CM 
O  b- 

o  oo 

0 

03 

co 

CO 

03 

to  TH  O 
b-  CO  CM 
b-  O  b- 

CO  CO  CM 

0 
CO 

m 
t- 

CM  CO 
rH  b- 
rH  O3 
00  CM 

S 

0 

O  TH 
CO  O 

00  O 

o 

m 

0 

h 

•  r4 

1 

be 

Blood  c< 
cubic  mi 

0) 

000 

o  o  o 
o  o  o 

CO  O  TH 
O  TH  CM 
O3  CM  O 
b-  CO  CO 

6  722  PPP 

0  0 

o  o 
o  o 

CO  00 
CO  TH 

in  oo 
co  in 

6  2P8  PPP 

6  465  PPP 

o  o 

0  0 

o  o 

00  0 
0  0 

oo  oo 

CO  TH 

5  8P4  PPP 

O  O 

0  0 

o  o 
o  o 

CM  CO 

in  co 

b-  TH 

5  94P  PPP 

oo 

o  o 
o  o 

0  TH 

o  o 

CM  rH 

7  152  PPP 

6  299  PPP 

O  O  O 

o  o  o 

000 
CM  O  CO 

in  TH  co 

OO  OO  O3 

TH  in  in 

5  553  PPP 

O  O 
O  O 
0  0 
O  O 
CO  CO 
CM  OO 
tfi  CO 

4  58P  PPP 

o  o 
o  o 

0  0 

o  o 

O  CM 

TH  rH 
(>.  CO 

6  76P  PPP 

0 

§ 

rH 

m 

acknowlec 
nations. 

be  . 

*  §' 

s  s 

Ml 

co  t-  eo 

00 

in  t- 

«9 

j. 

C3  10 

<N 

CM  TH 

eo 

OCM 

rH 

m 

in  o  m 

j. 

in  co 

TH 

o  oo 

^' 

oo 

5  a 

ca 
^K 

X5    <» 
CO 

£  °' 

1  si 

rH  rH  rH 

rH 

rH  rH 

rH    TJ 

£8 
ft 

CD 
•3 

P 

0  TH 
b-  rH  rH 

CO  CD  CD 

eo 

77 

co  co 

eo 

:o  co 

eo 

CO  CO 

O  TH 
rH  rH 

CO  CO 

O  TH 
b-  rH  rH 

CO  CO  CO 

CO 

23 

rH  rH 

coco 

*3 

S5 

S 

M 

-I 

M 

hfl 

—  l 
-H 

1—  1 

rH 

H 

a 

a 

—  1 

-H 

1—  1 

M 
-H 
M 

3 

•s  *» 
0  a 

C.-J3 
o& 

rC      0) 

31 
<J  = 

rH 

i 

TH 

1 

Avera 

in 

1 

- 

1 

oo 

I 

Avera 

co 

rH 

1 

eo 

rH 

.  i 

in 

rH 

I 

1 

H  * 

rt     c« 
•+j 

g 
^) 

94  BULLETIN  No.  168  [March, 

SLAUGHTER  TESTS 

For  the  purpose  of  making  a  detailed  study  of  the  various  parts 
of  the  animals,  careful  slaughter  tests  were  carried  out  on  the  fol- 
lowing pigs:  No.  1  of  Lot  I,  Nos.  5  and  7  of  Lot  II,  Nos.  16  and 
13  of  Lot  III,  and  Nos.  26  and  44  of  Lot  IV. 

The  selection  of  the  animals  in  the  case  of  the  low-,  medium-, 
and  high-protein  lots  was  based  upon  the  general  behavior  and  con- 
dition of  the  pigs  thruout  the  experiment,  and  also  upon  their  blood 
relationship.  Pig  1  was  the  only  available  animal  in  Lot  I  at  the 
close  of  the  experiment,  the  other  three  having  died.  Since  this 
animal  was  the  best  pig  in  the  three  lots  at  the  beginning  of  the  ex- 
periment, and  the  best  pig  in  Lot  I  thruout  the  experiment,  it  put 
the  low-protein  lot  in  a  more  favorable  light  than  should  have  been 
the  case.  The  animals  in  Lots  II  and  III,  respectively,  that  were 
most  nearly  comparable  with  No.  1  were  Pigs  5  and  16.  These  three 
animals  were  of  very  similar  type  and  ancestry.  They  were  very 
similar  also  in  thift  and  condition  during  the  preliminary  part  of 
the  experiment,  and  thruout  the  experiment  they  ate  their  feed  about 
equally  well.  The  second  individuals  that  were  selected  for  the 
slaughter  test  from  Lots  II  and  III,  Nos.  7  and  13,  were  chosen  be- 
cause they  were  from  the  same  litter,  of  similar  type,  and  of  about 
equal  merit  from  the  standpoint  of  thrift  and  condition  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  experiment. 

Judged  on  foot  as  market  hogs  on  the  days  they  were  slaughtered, 
the  pigs  ranked  as  follows,  the  best  being  placed  first : 

Pig  No 5      16     7      13    1 

Lot  No.   ...  .II    III    II    III    I 

Pig  5  had  the  best  finish  and  was  very  good  in  quality  and 
conformation.  Pig  16  was  somewhat  inferior  to  Nos.  5  and  7  in  fin- 
ish and  possibly  in  quality,  but  he  was  smoothly  and  thickly  fleshed 
and  evenly  developed,  being  very  uniform  from  front  to  back.  Pigs 
7  and  13  were  lighter  in  weight  than  Nos.  5  and  16.  Pig  7  possessed 
a  higher  degree  of  finish  and  somewhat  better  conformation  than  No. 
13.  No.  1  was  inferior  in  condition,  medium  in  quality,  and  fair  in 
conformation. 

The  killing  was  carried  out  under  careful  supervision,  and  spe- 
cial effort  was  made  to  do  the  work  as  accurately  and  yet  as  rapidly 
as  possible.  The  dressed  carcasses,  the  halves,  the  wholesale  cuts,  i.  e., 
the  hams,  shoulders,  and  sides,  the  fats,  and  the  various  organs  and 
parts  were  carefully  examined  and  weighed.  The  following  outline 
shows  the  parts  that  were  weighed  and  how  they  were  grouped  for 
sampling  for  the  subsequent  chemical  analysis. 


INFLUENCE  o*1  PKOTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


95 


II. 
TIL 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 


GROUPING  OF  WEIGHED  PARTS  OF  BODIES  FOR  SAMPLING 

Composite  offal 

(a)  Respiratory  organs 

Lungs,  larynx,  trachea,  etc. 

(b)  Digestive  organs 

Pharynx,  esophagus,  stomach,  small  intestine,  large  intestine 

(c)  Heart 

(d)  Liver 

(e)  Gall  bladder 

(f)  'Spleen 

(g)  Pancreas 
(h)     Tongue 

(i)      Urinary  organs 

Kidneys,  bladder,  penis,  ureters,  etc. 
(j)      Organs  of  the  central  nervous  system 

Brain,  spinal  cord 
(k)     Miscellaneous  parts 

Head,  feet,  tail,  trimming!2,  skin,  hair,  toes 
Blood 

Bone  and  marrow 
Composite  fat 

(a)     leaf,  (b)  intestinal,  (c)  head 
Boneless  meat  of  shoulder  (right  half) 
Boneless  meat  of  ham   (right  half) 
Boneless  meat  of  side  (right  half) 


POST-MORTEM  EXAMINATION 

The  liver,  kidneys,  lungs,  heart,  spleen,  stomach,  and  intestines 
were  studied  in  particular  for  the  purpose  of  determining  any  ab- 
normalities. The  results  are  tabulated  in  Table  6. 


TABLE  6. — POST-MORTEM  EXAMINATION* 


Pig 

Lot 

Liver 

Kidneys 

Lungs 

Heart 

Spleen 

Stomach 

Intestines 

1 

I 

Normal 
but 

Parenchy- 
matous 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

small 

nephritis 

y 

I 

Normal 
but 

Parenchy- 
matous 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Congested 

Congested 

small 

nephritis 

• 

4- 

I 

Normal 
but 
small 

Parenchy- 
matous 
nephritis 

Appar- 
ently tu- 
bercular 

Xormal 

Normal 

Inflam- 
mation 

Congested 

5 

II 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Eectal 

7 

II 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

ulcers 

i 

16 

III 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Slight 
inflam- 

Rectal 
ulcers 

13 

III 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

Normal 

mation 

i 

a 

JThe  authors  wish  hereby  to  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  Dr.  W.  J. 
MacNeal,  formerly  of  this  department,  for  the  data  relating  to  the  post-mortem 
examination. 

2Pigs  3  and  4  died  before  close  of  experiment. 

3Not  examined. 


96 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


The  most  striking  condition  found  by  the  post-mortem  examina- 
tion was  that  of  the  kidneys  of  the  animals  in  Lot  I.  They  all 
showed  distinct  lesions  of  chronic  parenchymatous  nephritis,  which 
apparently  was  the  cause  of  the  death  of  Nos.  3  and  4,  and  possibly 
of  No.  2.  Abnormally  small  livers  were  also  characteristic  of  the 
animals  on  the  low-protein  ration.  Pig  4  had  apparently  tubercular 
fossae  at  the  end  of  the  bronchus  leading  to  the  right  lower  lobe  of 
the  lungs.  The  linings  of  the  stomachs  of  Pigs  3  and  4  seemed  to 
be  somewhat  inflamed,  and  the  intestines  were  congested.  Between 
Lots  II  and  III,  the  post-mortem  examination  showed  no  differences. 

MEASUREMENTS  AND  WEIGHTS  OF  KIDNEYS 

The  data  for  the  weights  and  measurements  of  the  right  and  left 
kidneys  of  Pigs  1,  5,  7,  16,  and  13,  are  given  in  Table  7. 

TABLE  7. — MEASUREMENTS  AND  WEIGHTS  OF  KIDNEYS 


Right 

kidney 

Left  1 

ddney 

Pig 

Lot 

Length 

Width 

Thick- 
ness 

Weight 

Length 

Width 

Thick- 
ness 

Weight 

1 

I 

cm. 

10.0 

cm. 

4.0 

cm. 
2.7 

grams 
68 

cm. 
11.8 

cm. 
5.0 

cm. 
2.6 

grams 
90 

5 

7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

13.5 
12.0 

12.7 

6.8 
5.0 

5.9 

3.3 

2.2 

2.7 

166 
139 

153 

13.0 
11.5 

12.2 

6.0 
5.8 

5.9 

2.7 
2.7 

2.7 

131 
118 

124 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

12.5 
14.5 

13.5 

6.1 

4.5 

5.5 

3.0 
2.5 

2.7 

151 
129 

140 

14.5 
14.0 

14.2 

6.5 

5.3 

5.9 

2.9 
2.3 

2.6 

177 
124 

150 

"When  the  average  data  for  the  pigs  of  the  medium-  and  high- 
protein  lots  are  compared,  no  significant  differences  are  apparent  in 
either  the  right  or  left  kidneys.  On  the  other  hand,  the  differences 
between  the  values  within  the  lots  are  marked.  On  comparing  all  three 
lots,  it  will  be  noted  that  No.  1  of  the  low-protein  lot  had  lower 
values  for  length  and  width  than  either  No.  5  from  the  same  litter 
or  No.  16  from  the  same  sire,  tho  it  had  practically  the  same  value 
for  thickness.  Pigs  7  and  13  possibly  are  not  so  directly  comparable 
with  Pig  1,  as  they  were  of  different  ancestry,  type,  and  age.  How- 
ever, the  average  values  for  the  length  and  width  of  the  kidneys  of 
Pig  1  were  lower  than  the  corresponding  average  values  for  Lots  II 
and  III. 

The  kidneys  weighing  the  least  were  those  of  the  animal  on  the 
low-protein  ration,  the  weight  of  the  right  kidney  of  Pig  1  being 
68  grams  as  compared  with  166,  139,  151,  and  129  grams  for  Pigs  5, 
7,  16,  and  13,  respectively,  and  the  weight  of  the  left  kidney  only 


INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  97 

90  grams  as  compared  with  131,  118,  177,  and  124  grams,  respec- 
tively, for  Pigs  5,  7,  16,  and  33.  The  kidneys  of  the  pig  on  the  low- 
protein  ration,  therefore,  weighed  only  from  one-half  to  three-fourths 
as  much  as  those  of  the  pigs  on  the  medium-  and  the  high-protein 
rations.  On  the  other  hand,  the  weights  of  the  kidneys  of  the  pigs 
on  the  high-protein  ration  were  not  much  different  from  those  of  the 
animals  on  the  medium-protein  ration. 

JUDGING  OF  DRESSED  CARCASSES 

As  soon  as  the  various  organs  were  removed,  the  dressed  car- 
casses were  judged.  Figures  4  and  5,1  show  the  comparative  sizes 
of  the  five  pigs.  The  head  and  feet  were  not  taken  off  until  the 
carcasses  were  brought  back  from  cold  storage.  The  hair  also  was 
left,  on  because  it  would  have  been  necessary  to  use  hot  water  to  re- 
move it  and  this  would  have  introduced  errors  in  the  subsequent  chem- 
ical analyses.  The  judging  was  carried  out  under  the  direction  of 
Professor  Hall  of  this  department.  As  soon  as  it  was  completed  the 
entire  carcass  was  cut  in  half,  and  each  side  wrapped  in  cheese  cloth 
and  put  into  cold  storage. 

The  following  notes  were  taken  in  judging  the  dressed  carcasses. 
They  are  given  in  the  order  in  which  the  pigs  were  slaughtered. 

Comments  by  L.  D.  Hall. — "Pigs  7  and  13. — Grade,  'light  loin' 
or  'shipper'  hogs.  No  marked  difference  in  quality  or  finish.  No. 
7  slightly  fatter  on  belly  and  brisket  than  No.  13.  Color  of  bones 
(breast  bone,  hench  bone,  and  ribs)  and  color  of  flesh  alike.  No. 
7  is  slightly  more  compact  in  shape  and  fuller  in  the  hams. 

"Pig  1. — Same  grade  as  Nos.  7  and  13.  Less  fat  on  sides,  brisket, 
and  flanks  than  either  No.  7  or  13.  Color  of  flesh  and  fat  same  as 
that  of  the  other  two.  Carcass  is  especially  suitable  for  use  as 
'shipper.'  Kidneys  completely  covered  with  fat. 

"Pig  5. — 'Light  butcher'  hog.  Very  compact.  Choice  in  qual- 
ity and  well  finished.  Hams  large  and  plump.  Sides  thickly  cov- 
ered. Jowls  full  and  fat.  Color  of  flesh  and  fat  good.  Hench  bones 
and  breast  bone  cartilaginous.  Kidneys  well  covered  with  leaf  fat. 

"Pig  16. — 'Medium  butcher  grade.  Medium  finish;  form  some- 
what rangy.  Hams  good,  but  not  as  fat  as  those  of  No.  5.  Larger 
proportion  of  lean  to  fat  thruout  the  carcass  than  in  No.  5.  Fineness 
of  bone  about  the  same.  Flesh  normal  in  color.  Less  fat  on  brisket 
and  flanks  than  in  No.  5.  Kidneys  visible  thru  fat.  Leaf  fat  thinner 
than  in  Nos.  1  and  5. 

"Comparison  of  Pigs  1,  5,  and  16. — -Grade.— The  three  are  'light 
loin'  hogs.  No.  16  is  suitable  also  for  packing  purposes;  No.  1  espe- 
cially adapted  to  dress  'head-on'  and  sell  as  'shipper.'  '  Form. — • 
"No.  1  moderately  compact.  No.  5  very  compact  and  well  propor- 

'Seo  Appendix,  pages  131  and  132. 


98  BULLETIN  No.  168  [March, 

tioned  for  a  lard  hog.  No.  16  long  bodied,  with  length  particularly 
in  the  sides;  a  good  light  hog."  Quality. — "No  material  difference 
in  relative  size  of  bone,  color  of  flesh  or  fat,  firmness,  or  general 
appearance.  No.  5  has  the  best,  and  No.  16  the  largest,  proportion 
of  lean  to  fat.  All  three  are  choice  hogs. ' '  Finish. — ' '  No.  1  medium 
in  finish;  has  not  enough  covering  over  back,  loin,  and  sides.  No. 
5  choice  in  finish ;  scarcely  fat  enough  for  choice,  but  the  fattest  of 
the  three  hogs.  No.  16  decidedly  lower  in  degree  of  finish  than  No. 
5  and  about  the  same  as  No.  1." 

Comments  by  W.  E.  Joseph. — "No.  5  has  the  thickest  external 
fat.  Very  little  difference  between  Nos.  1  and  16.  The  fat  of  No. 
1  is  perhaps  a  trifle  thicker  than  that  of  No.  16.  The  differences  in 
lean  meat  are  not  very  striking.  Tenderloin  muscles  of  No.  1  seem 
to  be  the  smallest,  while  those  of  Nos.  5  and  16  are  very  full  and 
large. ' ' 

Comments  by  R.  H.  Williams. — "No.  1  is  the  shortest  pig  of  the 
three.  The  fat  of  No.  1  seems  to  be  a  little  dry.  Pig  No.  5,  tho 
not  as  long  as  No.  16,  is  fatter,  particularly  over  the  loin  and  back, 
and  carries  less  lean  meat  in  proportion  to  fat.  Pig  16  is  the  long- 
est of  the  lot  and  has  less  fat  and  more  lean  meat  than  Pig  5." 

Summary. — The  dressed  carcass  of  Pig  1  had  less  fat  on  the  sides, 
brisket,  and  flanks,  than  the  dressed  carcasses  of  the  pigs  of  Lots  II 
and  III.  The  chief  physical  difference  between  the  related  pigs  of  Lots 
I,  II,  and  III  seems  to  have  been  in  the  length  of  the  body,  which 
varied  directly  as  the  amount  of  protein  fed.  The  kidneys  of  all 
the  pigs  were  well  covered  with  fat.  Nos.  1,  7,  and  13  were  classed 
as  "light  loin"  or  "shipper,"  No.  5  as  "light  butcher,"  and  No.  16 
as  "medium  butcher." 

JUDGING  OF  CROSS-SECTIONS  OF  HALF- CARCASSES 

When  the  halves  were  taken  out  of  cold  storage,  cross-sections' 
were  made  at  the  fifth  rib.  The  cross-sections  were  judged  under  the 
direction  of  Professor  Hall,  and  the  notes  recorded  were  as  follows: 

Comments  by  L.  D.  Hall. — "No.  1  is  very  soft  in  both  fat  and 
lean.  The  fat  is  of  a  darker  color  than  that  of  the  others.  No.  5 
is  considerably  softer  in  fat  and  lean  than  No.  7.  The  meat  of 
No.  7  is  probably  the  firmest  of  the  meats  of  the  five  pigs.  On  the 
whole,  No.  16  is  firmer  than  No.  5,  and  No.  13  firmer  than  No.  16. 
No.  13  is  superior  to  No.  16  in  color.  The  bones  of  the  different 
half-carcasses  are  very  much  alike  except  that  those  of  No.  1  are 
lighter  in  color  and  apparently  harder  than  the  others.  The  marrow 
of  the  bones,  except  that  of  No.  1,  is  reddish." 

JSee  Fig.  6  in  Appendix,  page  133. 


1914}  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  Pica  99 

Comments  by  W.  E.  Joseph. — "The  arrangement  of  the  pigs  in 
order  of  decreasing  thickness  of  the  layer  of  fat  is  as  follows :  Nos.  5, 
16,  7,  13,  and  1.  No.  1  is  quite  thin.  Nos.  5  and  16  appear  to  have  a 
trifle  the  most  lean.  Not  much  difference  between  Nos.  5  and  16. 
No.  1  shows  nearly  as  much  lean  as  Nos.  7  and  13,  and,  since  it  has 
less  fat,  its  lean  shows  up  better.  No.  13  has  a  trifle  more  lean  than 
No.  7.  In  order  of  decreasing  intensity  of  the  color  of  their  flesh, 
the  pigs  may  be  arranged  as  follows :  Nos.  7,  5,  13,  16,  and  1.  The 
fat  of  No.  1  is  darker  than  that  of  any  of  the  others.  No  decided  dif- 
ference in  color  of  fat  of  the  others. ' ' 

Comments  by  R.  H,  Williams. — "No.  7  is  fatter  than  No.  13. 
From  the  fat  covering  the  ribs,  along  the  back,  and  especially  in  the 
belly,  this  animal  seems  to  have  been  in  the  higher  condition.  No. 
7  has  as  much  lean  as  No.  13.  General  grading: — in  order  of  decreas- 
ing length,  16,  5,  13,  7,  and  1 ;  in  order  of  decreasing  condition,  5, 
16,  7,  13,  and  1 ;  in  order  of  decreasing  firmness,  7,  13,  16,  5,  and  1. 
Of  Pigs  16,  5,  and  1,  No.  16  has  the  smoothest  and  the  best  carcass 
and  seems  to  be  much  firmer  than  either  of  the  others.  The  color 
of  the  fat  and  lean  meat  does  not  vary  much  in  any  of  them.  If 
anything,  the  lean  meat  of  Nos.  13  and  16  is  somewhat  the  brightest 
in  color.  No.  1  is  darker  in  both  lean  and  fat. ' ' 

Summary. — From  the  above  comments  upon  the  cross-sections  of 
the  carcasses,  it  seems  probable  that  the  carcass  of  Pig  1  of  Lot  I 
differed  somewhat  from  the  carcasses  of  the  animals  of  the  two  other 
groups,  as  follows :  first,  both  its  fat  and  its  lean  were  darker  in  color ; 
second,  its  fat  was  softer ;  and  third,  the  marrow  of  its  bones  was  not  as 
deep  a  red.  As  regards  Lots  II  and  III,  no  definite  lot  differences 
between  the  cross-sections  of  their  respective  animals  was  apparent. 

MEASUREMENTS  OF  CROSS- SECTIONS  OF  HALF- CARCASSES 

The  cross-sections  made  at  the  fifth  rib  were  measured  in  the 
manner  indicated  on  page  100.  Altho  the  measurements  were  taken 
carefully,  they  were,  at  the  same  time,  more  or  less  arbitrary. 

From  the  values  given  in  Table  8,  it  is  evident  that,  as  a  rule, 
the  differences  between  the  animals  within  the  lots  were  as  great 
as,  or  greater  than,  those  between  the  lots.  There  were  three  ex- 
ceptions to  this  statement,  i.  e.,  measurements  C,  E,  and  F  in  the 
case  of  Pig  1  of  Lot  I,  which  were  lower  than  any  of  those  given 
for  the  pigs  in  Lots  II  and  III.  Thus,  the  distance  C  was  3.6  cen- 
timeters for  Pig  1  as  compared  with  5.6  and  5.5  centimeters,  the 
averages  of  Lots  II  and  III,  respectively;  the  distance  E,  2.4  cen- 
timeters for  Pig  1  as  compared  with  3.3  and  3.2  centimeters  for 
Lots  II  and  III ;  and  the  distance  F,  36.0  centimeters  for  Pig  1  as 


100 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


TABLE  8. — MEASUREMENTS  OP  GROSS-SECTIONS  OP  HALF-CARCASSES 
(Results  expressed  in  centimeters) 


Pig 

Lot 

A 

B 

<J 

D 

E 

F 

1 

I 

5.8 

9.3 

3.6 

2.9 

2.4 

36.0 

5 

II 

5.4 

10.4 

5.3 

4.3 

3.2 

42.0 

7 

II 

6.3 

9.0 

6.0 

3.^ 

3.4 

40.0 

Average 

II 

5.8 

9.7 

5.6 

3.7 

3.3 

41.0 

16 

III 

6.1 

9.0 

5.5 

4.0 

3.6 

40.3 

13 

III 

5.5 

8.7 

5.5 

3.0 

2.9 

39.0 

Average 

III 

5.8 

8.8 

5.5 

3.5 

3.2 

39.6 

BONE 


CROSS-SECTION  OP  SIDE  CUT  AT  FIFTH  BIB 


A — height  of  "eye"  below  bone 

B— width  of  "eye" 

C — thickness  of  fat  and  skin 


D — thickness  of  meaty  parts 
E — thickness  of  fat  and  skin 
F — extreme  length  of  cross-section 


11)14]  iNFLUKNCE   OP   PKOTK1N    ON    THE   DEVELOl'MENT   0*'   PlGS  101 

compared  with  41.0  and  39.6  centimeters  for  Lots  II  and  III.  It  is 
thus  apparent  that  the  cross-section  of  the  side  of  Pig  1  showed  less 
fat  than  the  cross-sections  of  the  four  other  pigs,  tho  practically  the 
same  amount  of  lean. 

WEIGHTS  OF  PIGS,  DRESSED  CARCASSES,  AND  CUTS  OF  PORK 

From  the  data  presented  in  Tables  9  and  10,  it  is  quite  apparent 
that  there  were  no  significant  differences  between  the  fasted  live 
weights,  the  net  live  weights,  the  weights  of  the  dressed  carcasses,  or 
the  cuts  of  pork  from  the  right  and  left  halves  of  the  pigs  of  the 
different  lots,  other  than  those  due  to  differences  in  the  live  weights 
of  the  animals  when  slaughtered.  In  other  words,  the  weights  of 
the  dressed  carcasses  and  the  cuts  of  pork  varied  in  general  directly 
with  the  live  weight. 

On  comparing  the  weights  of  corresponding  cuts  from  the  two  sides 
of  the  same  animal,  it  will  be  seen  that  they  agreed  fairly  well.  For 
example,  with  Pig  1  the  corresponding  left  and  right  shoulder,  side, 
and  ham  cuts  weighed  17.74  and  17.22,  30.36  and  29.40,  and  13.36  and 
14.80  pounds,  respectively.  The  data  for  the  three  cuts  in  the  case 
of  all  five  animals  show  that  the  weight  of  the  ham  cut  was  the  small- 
est, the  weight  of  the  shoulder  cut  slightly  greater,  and  the  weight  of 
the  side  cut  about  twice  the  weight  of  the  ham. 

The  percentages  for  the  net  live  weights  given  in  Table  10  show 
that  the  contents  of  the  digestive  tract  made  up  about  2.8  percent 
of  the  live  weight.  The  carcass  of  Pig  16  dressed  the  highest,  and 
that  of  Pig  13  of  the  same  lot,  the  lowest,  the  values  being  73.13  and 
68.67  percent,  respectively.  In  Lot  II,  Pig  7  dressed  out  higher 
than  Pig  5,  while  in  Lot  III,  Pig  16  dressed  higher  than  Pig  13. 
The  difference  within  Lot  II  was  not  so  great  as  that  in  Lot  III. 
The  carcass  of  Pig  1  dressed  71.04  percent,  a  value  about  the  average 
for  the  other  two  lots. 

The  data  show  that  the  percentages  of  the  ham  and  shoulder 
cuts  of  Pig  1  were  among  the  highest,  while  the  values  for  the  side 
cut  were  among  the  lowest.  The  average  percentages  of  the  right  and 
left  cuts  for  the  three  lots  as  a  whole  were,  respectively:  for  the 
ham,  8.05  and  7.71 ;  for  the  shoulder,  9.71  and  10.10 ;  and  for  the 
side,  17.99  and  17.59. 


102 


BULLETIN  No.  1G8 


TABLE  9. — WEIGHTS  OP  PIGS,  DRESSED  CARCASSES,  AND  CUTS  OF  PORK 
(Results  expressed  in  pounds) 


Animal 

Lot 

Fasted 
live 
weight 

Net1 
live 
weight 

Dressed 
carcass 

Cuts  from  right  half 

Cuts  from  left  half 

Ham 

Shoul- 
der 

Side 

Ham 

Shoul- 
der 

Side 

1 

I 

173.0 

169.1 

122.9 

14.80 

17.22 

29.40 

13.36 

17.74 

30.36 

6 

7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

238.6 
195.2 

216.9 

232.2 
188.8 

210.5 

169.1 

140.7 

154.9 

18.20 
15.52 

16.86 

22.64 
19.23 

20.93 

44.24 
35.82 

40.03 

18.19 
15.58 

16.88 

21.05 
21.56 

21.25 

44.81 
33.08 

38.94 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

240.8 
181.6 

211.2 

235.2 
175.6 

205.4 

176.1 
124.7 

150.4 

20.30 
14.00 

17.15 

23.54 
17.24 

20.39 

45.46 
31.20 

38.33 

18.62 
13.66 

16.14 

25.26 
17.96 

21.61 

42.92 
30.60 

36.76 

Average 

All  . 

205.8 

200.2 

146.7 

16.56 

19.97 

37.22 

15.88 

20.71 

36.35 

26 
44 

Average 

IV 
IV 

IV 

61.0 
51.7 

57.8 

58.4 
52.5 

55.4 

TABLE  10. — RELATION  OF  WEIGHTS  OF  PIGS,  DRESSED  CARCASSES,  AND  CUTS  OF 
PORK  TO  FASTED  LIVE  WEIGHT 

(Results  expressed  in  percent) 


Animal 

Lot 

Net1 
live 
weight 

Dressed 
carcass 

Cuts  from  right  half 

Cuts  from  left  half 

Ham 

Shoul- 
der 

Side 

Ham 

Shoul- 
der 

Side 

1 

I 

97.75 

71.04 

8.55 

9.95 

16.99 

7.72 

10.25 

17.55 

5 

7 

Average 

II 
II 

n 

97.32 
96.72 

97.02 

70.87 
72.08 

71.47 

7.63 
7.95 

7.79 

9.49 
9.85 

9.67 

18.54 
18.35 

18.44 

7.62 
7.98 

7.80 

8.82 
11.05 

9.95 

18.78 
16.95 

17.86 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

96.67 
96.70 

97.18 

73.13 
68.67 

70.90 

8.43 
7.71 

8.07 

9.78 
9.49 

9.63 

18.88 
17.18 

18.03 

7.73 
7.52 

7.62 

10.49 
9.89 

10.19 

17.82 
16.85 

17.33 

Average 

All 

97.23 

71.16 

8.05 

9.71 

17.99 

7.71 

10.10 

17.59 

26 
44 

Average 

IV 
IV 

IV 

95.74 
95.97 

95.85 

55.11 
55.08 

55.09 



,  .  .' 

lasted  live  weight  less  weight  of  contents  of  digestive  tract. 


WEIGHTS  OF  BONELESS  MEAT,  SKELETON,  FATS,  AND  OFFAL 

From  the  data  given  in  Table  11,  it  is  apparent  that  the  weight 
of  the  boneless  meat  in  the  cuts  varied  directly  with  the  net  live 
weight.  That  is,  the  weights  of  the  meat  in  the  cuts  from  Pigs  5 
and  16  were  greater  than  those  for  the  cuts  of  Pigs  7  and  13.  The 
values  for  Pig  1  corresponded  to  those  for  Pig  13.  The  weights  for 


1!)14]  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTKIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  103 

Pig  7  were  a  little  higher  than  those  for  Pigs  1  and  13.  The  average 
values  for  all  five  pigs  for  the  boneless  meat  were  as  follows :  ham, 
27.58  pounds ;  shoulder,  34.54  pounds ;  and  side  cut,  62.98  pounds. 

The  weights  of  the  skeletons  of  the  different  animals  varied  de- 
cidedly. For  example,  in  Lot  III,  the  skeleton  of  Pig  13  weighed 
16.96  pounds,  and  that  of  Pig  16,  20.88  pounds.  The  weight  of  the 
skeleton  of  Pig  1  was  more  nearly  like  the  weights  of  the  skeletons 
of  Pigs  7  and  13,  and  much  less  than  those  of  the  skeletons  of  Pigs 
5  and  16.  The  average  weight  for  all  five  pigs  was  18.68  pounds. 
The  differences  within  Lots  II  and  III  were  greater  than  those  be- 
tween them. 

In  the  case  of  Pig  1,  the  leaf,  intestinal,  and  composite  fats 
weighed  less  than  those  from  Pigs  5  and  16,  but  more  than  those 
from  Pigs  7  and  13.  Taking  the  average  of  the  weights  for  the  pigs 
in  Lots  II  and  III,  the  intestinal  and  composite  fats  were  higher, 
and  the  leaf  fat  lower,  than  those  for  Pig  1. 

The  weights  of  the  composite  offal  show  that  there  was  prac- 
tically no  difference  between  Lots  II  and  III,  and  that  the  values  for 
Pig  1  were  lower  than  those  of  any  other  animal  in  the  experiment. 
The  average  weight  of  the  composite  offal  for  all  five  pigs  was  38.09 
pounds. 

With  the  weights  of  the  parts  of  the  five  pigs  in  Table  11  are 
presented  also  those  for  the  two  pigs  that  were  slaughtered  for  a 
control  at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.  The  differences  between 
the  values  for  these  two  animals  in  some  instances  were  marked. 

Table  12  gives  the  weights  of  the  various  parts  of  the  carcasses 
in  percent  of  the  net  live  weight.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  dif- 
ferences between  Lots  II  and  III  were  slight,  while  the  differences 
between  the  individual  pigs  were  in  some  instances  great.  In  the 
case  of  Pig  1,  the  values  for  the  boneless  meat  of  the  ham  and 
shoulder  cuts,  for  the  intestinal  and  composite  fats,  and  for  the  com- 
posite offal  were  intermediate  between  those  for  the  pigs  of  one  or 
both  of  the  other  lots,  and  the  values  for  the  ham,  shoulder,  and  offal 
were  very  nearly  the  same  as  the  average  values  for  Lots  II  and  III. 
The  value  of  the  side  cut  for  Pig  1  agreed  with  the  corresponding 
values  for  Pigs  7  and  13.  The  skeleton  of  Pig  1  was  the  heaviest  in 
relation  to  the  net  live  weight,  and  the  skeletons  of  Nos.  5  and  16,  the 
lightest.  Pig  1  had  the  highest  percentage  of  leaf  fat,  i.  e.,  4.36  per- 
cent. The  averages  for  Lots  II  and  III,  respectively,  were  3.08  and 
3.13  percent. 

Keferring  to  the  data  for  the  pigs  of  Lot  IV,  it  will  be  of  in- 
terest to  note  that  the  values  for  the  skeletons  were  almost  the  same 
as  those  for  the  older  and  more  mature  pigs;  the  percentages  of 
leaf  and  composite  fat,  much  lower;  and  the  percentage  of  composite 
offal,  higher. 


104 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


TABLE  11. — WEIGHTS  or  BONELESS  MEAT,  SKELETON,  FATS,  AND  OFFAL 
(Eesults  expressed  in  pounds) 


Boneless  Meat 

Fats 

Loss 

Com- 

and 

Animal 

Lot 

Ham 

Shoul- 

Side 

Dressed 

Skel- 
eton 

Leaf 

Intes- 

Com- 

posite 
offal 

error  in 
slaugh- 

der 

carcass 

tinal 

posite 

tering 

1 

I 

23.04 

29.28 

49.78 

102.1 

17.87 

7.36 

3.04 

12.04 

32.45 

4.64 

5 

II 

31.53 

37.17 

77.86 

146.5 

19.75 

9.25 

4.08 

16.85 

44.36 

4.74 

7 

II 

26.46 

35.55 

58.18 

120.2 

17.95 

4.10 

2.15 

9.91 

35.41 

5.33 

Average 

II 

28.99 

36.36 

68.02 

133.4 

18.85 

6.68 

3.11 

13.38 

39.88 

5.03 

16 

III 

33.52 

41.16 

76.22 

150.9 

20.88 

7.96 

4.40 

16.31 

42.67 

4.44 

13 

III 

23.34 

29.56 

52.88 

105.8 

16.96 

5.07 

2.86 

11.70 

35.56 

5.58 

Average 

III 

28.43 

35.36 

64.55 

128.3 

18.92 

6.51 

3.63 

14.00 

39.11 

5.01 

Average 

All 

27.58 

34.54 

62.98 

125.1 

18.68 

6.75 

3.31 

13.36 

38.09 

4.95 

26 

IV 

•  •  *  • 

28.7 

5.60 

0.39 



0.69 

20.07 

3.34 

44 

IV 







25.5 

4.37 

0.55 



0.82 

18.28 

3.53 

Average 

IV 





27.1 

4.98 

0.47 



0.75 

19.17 

3.43 

TABLE  12.— KELATION  OF  WEIGHTS  OF  BONELESS  MEAT,  SKELETON,  FATS,  AND 
OFFAL  TO  NET  LIVE  WEIGHT 

(Eesults  expressed  in  percent) 


Animal 

Lot 

Boneless  meat 

Skele- 
ton 

Fats 

Com- 
posite 
offal 

Loss  and 
error  in 
slaugh- 
tering 

Ham 

Shoul- 
der 

Side 

Dressed 
carcass 

Leaf 

Intes- 
tinal 

Com- 
posite 

1 

1 

13.63 

17.32 

29.4  i 

60.39 

10.58 

4.36 

1.80 

7.12 

19.19 

2.74 

5 

7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

13.58 
14.01 

13.79 

16.01 
18.83 

17.42 

33.53 
30.82 

32.17 

63.12 
63.64 

63.38 

8.51 
9.50 

9.00 

3.99 
2.17 

3.08 

1.76 
1.14 

1.45 

7.26 
5.25 

6.25 

19.10 
18.76 

18.93 

2.04 

2.82 

2.43 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

14.25 
13.29 

13.77 

17.50 
16.83 

17.16 

32.41 
30.11 

31.26 

64.16 
60.24 

62.20 

8.88 
9.65 

9.26 

3.38 
2.89 

3.13 

•  1.87 
1.63 

1.75 

6.94 
6.66 

6.80 

18.14 
20.25 

19.19 

1.89 
3.18 

2.53 

Average 

All 

13.75 

17.30 

31.26 

62.31 

9.42 

3.36 

1.64 

6.65 

19.09 

2.53 

26 
44 

Average 

IV 
IV 

IV 

51.35 
50.97 

51.16 

9.59 
8.33 

8.90 

0.66 
1.04 

0.85 

1.34 
1.84 

1.60 

34.38 
34.82 

34.60 

5.72 
6.72 

6.22 

W14~\  INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OP  PIGS  105 

WEIGHTS  OF  BLOOD  AND  RESPIRATORY  AND  DIGESTIVE  ORGANS 

From  the  data  in  Table  13,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  weights  of  the 
blood  for  the  pigs  in  Lots  II  and  III  varied  considerably,  those  for 
Nos.  7  and  13  being  lower  than  those  for  Nos.  5  and  16.  The  differ- 
ences between  the  corresponding  pigs  of  these  two  lots,  however,  were 
slight.  The  weight  of  the  blood  of  Pig  1  was  lower  than  that  for 
any  of  the  animals  of  Lots  II  and  III.  It  corresponded  more  nearly 
to  the  values  for  Pigs  7  and  13,  but  was  about  0.9  pound  less.  Cal- 
culated on  the  basis  of  the  net  live  weight,  the  amount  of  blood  for 
the  five  pigs  was  fairly  constant,  ranging  from  2.89  percent  for  Pig 
5  to  3.38  percent  for  Pig  13,  with  an  average  for  all  of  3.15  per- 
cent. 

The  weights  of  the  respiratory  organs  seemed  to  be  fairly  uni- 
form for  the  pigs  in  Lots  II  and  III.  The  differences  within  the  lots 
were  greater  than  those  between  them.  In  the  case  of  Lots  I  and  II, 
the  value  for  Pig  1  of  Lot  I  was  about  the  same  as  that  for  Pig  7  of 
Lot  II.  That  the  differences  within  Lots  II  and  III  were  greater  than 
those  between  the  lots  is  shown  also  by  the  data  expressed  in  percent 
of  the  net  live  weight. 

In  the  case  of  the  digestive  organs,  the  weights  of  the  stomach 
for  the  pigs  of  Lots  II  and  III  were  uniform  both  within  the  lots 
and  between  them.  The  average  weight  for  Lot  II  was  1.28  pounds, 
and  that  for  Lot  III,  1.31  pounds.  The  weights  of  the  small  and 
large  intestines  of  the  pigs  on  the  medium-  and  high-protein  rations 
showed  considerable  difference  within  the  lots.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  average  data  for  these  lots  as  a  whole  agreed  quite  closely,  being 
2.19  and  2.21  pounds  for  the  small  intestines,  and  2.10  and  2.07 
pounds,  respectively,  for  the  large  intestines.  The  average  total 
weights  of  the  digestive  organs  for  Lots  II  and  III  were  almost 
exactly  alike,  being  5.58  and  5.59  pounds,  respectively.  The  differ- 
ences between  the  pigs,  however,  were  noticeable,  the  value  for  Pig  7 
being  0.83  pound  less  than  that  for  .Pig  5,  and  that  for  Pig  13,  0.87 
pound  more  than  that  for  Pig  16.  The  weight  of  the  stomach  of  Pig  1 
on  the  low-protein  ration  was  distinctly  less  than  the  weights  of  the 
stomachs  of  the  pigs  on  the  medium-  and  high-protein  rations.  In  the 
case  of  the  intestines,  the  lot  differences  were  insignificant. 

The  weights  of  the  blood  and  the  small  and  large  intestines  for 
the  pigs  of  the  control  lot,  No.  IV,  were  very  much  lower  than  those 
for  the  pigs  of  Lots  I,  II,  and  III.  The  weights  of  the  respiratory 
organs  and  the  stomach  were  slightly  less  than  those  for  Lot  I,  and 
considerably  less  than  those  for  Lots  II  and  III. 

Calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  net  live  weight,  the  weights  of  the 
respiratory  organs  and  the  digestive  organs  show  differences  within 
the  lots  greater  than  those  between  them.  This  seems  true  especially 
in  connection  with  Lot  III.  If  the  results  for  the  individual  pigs  of 


106 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


Lot  III  are  compared  with  the  corresponding  data  for  Lot  II,  it  will 
be  noted  that  the  values  for  the  small  and  large  intestines  of  Pig  1(J 
were  very  low,  while  those  for  Pig  13  were  correspondingly  high.  Ap- 
parently the  values  for  the  blood  of  Lot  III  were  significantly  higher 
than  those  of  the  other  lots. 

The  values  for  the  pigs  of  Lot  IV  were  distinctly  different  from 
those  of  Lots  I,  II,  and  III.  The  percentage  of  blood  was  4.98,  or 
about  50  percent  greater  than  the  values  for  the  other  pigs,  while 
the  values  for  the  respiratory  organs,  the  stomachs,  and  the  small 
and  large  intestines  were  all  about  twice  as  great  as  those  for  the 
pigs  in  the  other  lots. 

TABLE  13. — WEIGHTS  OF  BLOOD  AND  RESPIRATORY  AND  DIGESTIVE  ORGANS 
(Kesults  expressed  in  pounds) 


Animal 

Lot 

Blood 

Respi- 
ratory 
(lungs, 
etc.) 

Digestive  organs 

Stomach 

Intestines 

Total 

Small 

Large 

1 

I 

5.01 

1.03 

0.97 

1.746 

2.065 

4.781 

5 

II 

8.05 

1.29 

1.28 

2.374 

2.344 

6.000 

7 

II 

5.94 

1.08 

1.29 

2.011 

1.867 

5.168 

Average 

II 

6.99 

1.18 

1.28 

2.192 

2.105 

5.584 

16 

III 

7.03 

1.17 

1.32 

1.860 

1.974 

5.155 

13 

III 

5.93 

1.48 

1.30 

2.556 

2.168 

6.024 

Average 

III 

6.48 

1.32 

1.31 

2.208 

2.071 

5.589 

26 

IV 

2.86 

0.89 

0.78 

1.482 

1.016 

3.278 

44 

IV 

2.6G 

0.73 

0.69 

1.293 

1.109 

3.092 

Average 

IV 

2.76 

0.81 

0.73 

1.387 

1.062 

3.185 

TABLE  14. — EELATION  OF  WEIGHTS  OF  BLCOD  AND  RESPIRATORY  AND  DIGESTIVE 
ORGANS  TO  NET  LIVE  WEIGHT 

(Results  expressed  in  percent) 


Animal 

Lot 

Blood 

Respi- 
ratory 

(lungs, 
etc.) 

Digestive  organs 

Stomach 

Intestines 

Total 

Small 

Large 

1 

I 

2.96 

0.610 

0.575 

1.033 

1.221 

2.829 

5 

7 

Average 
~~16~ 
13 

Average 

II 

II 

II 

2.89 
3.18 

3.03 

0.556 
0.569 

0.562 

0.552 
0.684 

0.618 

1.023 
1.065 

1.044 

1.010 
0.989 

0.999 

2.585 
2.738 

2.661 

III 
III 

III 

3.S4 

3.38 

3.36 

0.498 
0.844 

0.671 

0.562 
0.740 

0.651 

0.791 
1.455 

1.123 

0.839 
1.235 

1.037 

2.192 
3.430 

2.811 

26 

44 

Average 

IV 
IV 

IV 

4.91 
5.06 

4.98 

1.531 
1.386 

1.458 

1.330 

1.323 

1.326 

2.539 
2.464 

2.501 

1.741 
2.112 

1.926 

5.610 
5.899 

5.754 

INFLUENCE  OF  PKOTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  Pics 


107 


WEIGHTS  OF  HEART,  LIVER,  SPLEEN,  PANCREAS,  GALL  BLADDER, 

AND  TONGUE 

The  weights  of  the  heart,  liver,  spleen,  pancreas,  gall  bladder, 
and  tongue  will  be  found  in  Table  15.  These  also  varied  apparently 
directly  with  the  live  weights.  Thus,  in  Lots  II  and  III,  the  values 
for  Pigs  5  and  16  ran  higher  than  those  for  the  lighter  pigs,  Nos.  7 
and  13.  Likewise,  the  values  for  the  pig  in  Lot  I  compared  more  fav- 
orably with  those  for  Pigs  7  and  13  than  with  those  for  Pigs  5  and 
16.  Between  the  corresponding  pigs  of  Lots  II  and  III,  there  was 
very  little  difference.  The  organs  of  Pig  1  on  the  low-protein  ration 
did  not  develop  to  the  same  extent  as  those  of  Nos.  5  and  16  of  Lots 

II  and  III,  to  which  Pig  1  was  most  closely  related.    On  the  contrary, 
they  were  most  nearly  like  those  of  Pigs  7  and  13,  tho  the  weight 
of  the  liver  was  distinctly  less. 

Expressed  in  percent  of  the  net  live  weight,  the  results  for  Lots 
I,  II,  and  III  were  very  close,  except  in  the  case  of  the  liver  of 
Pig  1,  which  was  apparently  lower  than  the  corresponding  weights 
for  Lots  II  and  III.  The  differences  between  the  values  within  the 
lots,  altho  small,  were  greater  than  those  between  the  lots.  In  the  case 
of  the  heart,  there  was  a  slight  suggestion  that  the  weights  varied 
inversely  with  the  amount  of  protein  fed. 

A  comparison  of  the  data  for  Lot  IV  with  those  for  Lots  II  and 

III  will  show  that  in  the  case  of  the  younger  pigs  the  average  weight 
of  the  heart  was  about  one-third  to  one-half  as  great  as  the  corre- 
sponding weights  for  the  older  pigs,  the  weight  of  the  liver  about  one- 
half  as  great,  the  weight  of  the  spleen  from  one-third  to  one-half  as 


TABLE  15. —  WEIGHTS  OF  THE  HEART,  LIVER,  SPLEEN,  PANCREAS,  GALL  BLADDER, 

AND  TONGUE 


Animal 

Lot 

Heart 

Liver 

Spleen 

Pancreas 

Gall 
bladder 

Tongue 

1 

I 

OS. 

9.496 

Z&s. 
2.159 

03. 

3.122 

02. 
2.974 

OS. 

0.215 

02. 

8.183 

5 

7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

12.760 

9.887 

11.323 

3.622 
3.002 

3.312 

4.159 
2.501 

3.330 

4.332 
4.349 

4.340 

0.233 
0.219 

0.226 

7.C23 
7.379 

7.501 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

11.400 

8.617 

10.008 

3.677 

2.758 

3.217 

4.014 
3.203 

3.608 

2.832 
3.369 

3.100 

0.282 
0.123 

0.202 

8.497 
7.175 

7.836 

26 
44 

Average 

IV 

IV 

IV 

4.250 
3.947 

4.098 

1.637 
1.626 

1.631 

1.464 
0.988 

1.226 

2.547 
1.855 

2.201 

0.339 
0.360 

0.349 

6.554 
5.743 

6.148 

108 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


great,  the  weight  of  the  pancreas  from  one-tenth  to  one-half  as  great, 
the  weight  of  the  gall  bladder  from  one  and  two-tenths  to  three  times 
as  great,  and  the  weight  of  the  tongue  about  three-fourths  as  great. 


TABLE  16. — KELATION  OF  WEIGHTS  OF  HEART,  LIVER,   SPLEEN,  PANCREAS,  GALL 
BLADDER,  AND  TONGUE  TO  NET  LIVE  WEIGHT 

(Results  expressed  in  percent) 


Animal 

Lat 

Heart 

Liver 

Spleen 

Pancreas 

Gall 
bladder 

Tongue 

1 

I 

0.351 

1.277 

0.115 

0.110 

0.008 

0.303 

5 
7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

0.344 
0.327 

0.335 

1.560 
1.590 

1.575 

0.112 
0.083 

0.097 

0.117 
0.144 

0.130 

0.006 
0.007 

0.006 

0.205 
0.244 

0.224 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

0.303 
0.307 

0.305 

1.563 
1.571 

1.567 

0.107 
0.114 

0.110 

0.075 
0.120 

0.097 

0.007 
0.004 

0.005 

0.226 
0.255 

0.240 

26 

44 

Average 

IV 

rv 

IV 

0.455 
0.470 

0.462 

2.806 
3.097 

2.951 

0.157 
0.118 

0.137 

0.273 
0.221 

0.247 

0.036 
0.043 

0.039 

0.702 
0.684 

0.693 

WEIGHTS  OF  URINARY  ORGANS  AND  ORGANS  OF  CENTRAL  NERVOUS 

SYSTEM 

From  the  data  given  in  Table  17,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  weights 
of  the  kidneys  of  the  low-protein  lot  were  from  40  to  50  percent 
lower  than  those  of  the  pigs  of  Lots  II  and  III.  On  comparing  the  re- 
sults for  the  pigs  on  the  medium-  and  the  high-protein  rations,  it  will 
be  noted  that  the  differences  within  the  lots  were  greater  than  those 
between  them.  The  differences  between  Lots  II  and  III  were  insignifi- 
cant also  in  the  case  of  the  weights  of  the  other  urinary  organs  and  the 
organs  of  the  central  nervous  system.  The  weights  of  the  kidneys, 
bladder,  and  spinal  cord  of  the  control  pigs,  Nos.  26  and  44,  were  con- 
siderably lower  than  those  of  Lots  II  and  III,  tho  the  weights  of  their 
brains  were  almost  the  same. 

Expressed  in  percent  of  the  net  live  weight,  the  data  for  the 
three  lots  show  that  the  individual  variations,  excepting  those 
for  the  kidneys  (page  96),  were  greater  than  the  lot  variations.  In  the 
case  of  the  pigs  of  the  control  lot,  the  percentage  values  for  the  kid- 
neys, brains,  and  spinal  cord  were  higher  than  those  for  the  older  and 
more  mature  pigs. 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


109 


TAHLE  17.— WEIGHTS  OP  URINARY  ORGANS  AND  ORGANS  OP  CENTRAL 
NERVOUS  SYSTEM 

(Eesults  expressed  in  ounces) 


Animal 

Lot 

Urinary  organs 

Nerve  centers 

Kidneys 

Bladder, 
etc. 

Total 

Brain 

Spinal 
cord 

Total 

1 

I 

5.559 

8.504 

14.063 

3.129 

2.067 

5.196 

5 

7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

10.470 
9.086 

9.778 

8.755 
5.820 

7.287 

19.225 
14.906 

17.065 

3.831 
3.683 

3.757 

1.831 
1.915 

1.873 

5.662 
5.598 

5.630 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

11.560 
8.889 

10.224 

8.882 
7.429 

8.155 

20.442 
16.318 

18.380 

3.372 
1.683 

2.527 

1.718 
2.166 

1.942 

5.090 
3.849 

4.469 

26 

44 

Average 

IV 
IV 

IV 

3.735 
4.039 

3.887 

1.693 
1.601 

1.647 

5.428 
5.640 

5.534 

3.072 

2.882 

2.977 

0.935 
0.938 

0.936 

4.007 
3.820 

3.913 

TABLE  18. — EELATION  CF  WEIGHTS  OF  URINARY  ORGANS  AND  ORGANS  OF  CENTRAL 
NERVOUS  SYSTEM  TO  NET  LIVE  WEIGHT 

(Results  expressed  in  percent) 


Animal 

Lot 

Urinary  organs 

Nerve  centers 

Kidney 

Bladder, 
etc. 

Total 

Brain 

Spinal 
cord 

Total 

1 

I 

0.206 

0.314 

0.520 

0.116 

0.076 

0.192 

5 
7 

Average 

II 
II 

II 

0.281 
0.301 

0.291 

0.236 
0.193 

0.214 

0.517 
0.494 

0.505 

0.103 
0.122 

0.112 

0.049 
0.063 

0.056 

0.152 
0.185 

0.168 

16 
13 

Average 

III 
III 

III 

0.307 
0.316 

0.311 

0.236 
0.264 

0.250 

0.543 
0.580 

0.561 

0.090 
0.120 

0.105 

0.046 
0.077 

0.061 

0.136 
0.197 

0.166 

26 
44 

Average 

rv 

IV 

rv 

0.400 
0.481 

0.440 

0.181 
0.191 

0.186 

0.581 
0.672 

0.626 

0.329 
0.343 

0.336 

0.100 
0.112 

0.106 

0.429 
0.435 

0.442 

WEIGHTS  OF  MISCELLANEOUS  PARTS 

In  Table  19  will  be  found  the  weights  of  the  miscellaneous  parts 
of  the  carcasses — the  head,  feet,  tail,  and  skin,  hair,  and  toes.  These 
data  are  of  interest  chiefly  from  the  standpoint  of  the  completeness 
of  the  record  for  the  entire  bodies  of  the  slaughtered  pigs.  The  data 
for  Pig  1  were  slightly  the  lowest  in  the  case  of  the  head,  feet,  and  tail. 
Between  the  corresponding  animals  of  Lots  II  and  III,  the  differences 


110 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


were  comparatively  slight.  The  lot  averages  were  nearly  the  same. 
Figured  on  the  basis  of  the  net  live  weight,  the  data  indicate  that  the 
weights  of  the  different  parts  were  fairly  close,  and  that  the  differences 
within  the  lots  were  greater  than  those  between  them. 


TABLE  19. — WEIGHTS  OF  MISCELLANEOUS  PARTS 
(Eesults  expressed  in  pounds) 


Animal 

Lot 

Head 

Feet 

Tail 

Skin,  hair, 
and  toes 

1 

I 

14.68 

3.299 

0.131 

10.556 

5 

7 

II 

n 

19.62 
15.13 

3.804 
3.547 

0.188 
0.187 

12.849 
11.196 

Average 

n 

17.37 

3.675 

0.187 

12.022 

16 
13 

in 
in 

19.27 
15.85 

4.168 
3.425 

0.198 
0.191 

14.542 
9.727 

Average 

in 

17.56 

3.796 

0.194 

12.134 

TABLE  20. — BELATION  OF  WEIGHTS  OF  MISCELLANEOUS  PARTS  TO  NET  LIVE  WEIGHT 
(Eesults  expressed  in  percent) 


Animal 

Lot 

Head 

Feet 

Tail 

Skin,  hair, 
and  toes 

1 

I 

8.68 

1.95 

0.077 

6.24 

5 

7 

n 
ii 

8.45 
8.01 

1.64 

1.88 

0.081 
0.099 

5.53 
5.93 

Average 

n 

8.23 

1.76 

0.090 

5.73 

16 
13 

in 
in 

8.19 
9.03 

1.77 
1.95 

0.084 
0.109 

6.18 
5.54 

Average 

m 

.      8.61 

1.86 

0.096 

5.86 

PHYSICAL  MEASUREMENTS  OF  LEG  BONES1 

The  weights,  lengths,  diameters,  and  breaking  strengths  were  de- 
termined for  the  bones  in  the  green  state.  The  bones  used  were  those 
from  the  left  hind  leg  of  Pig  5  and  from  both  of  the  hind  legs  of 


*The  authors  wish  hereby  to  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  Mr.  Carl  Chris- 
topher for  carrying  out  much  of  the  detailed  work  on  the  physical  measurements 
of  the  bones.  They  are  indebted  also  to  Messrs.  W.  A.  Slater  and  D.  A.  Abrams 
of  the  Department  of  Theoretical  and  Applied  Mechanics  of  the  College  of  En- 
gineering for  generous  assistance  and  advice  in  carrying  out  these  measurements. 
To  Mr.  Slater  special  acknowledgment  is  due  for  calculating  the  moduli  of  rupture 
:md  the  section  moduli. 


1914'}  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  111 

each  of  the  four  other  pigs.  In  removing  the  flesh  from  the  bones  in 
preparing  them  for  these  determinations,  care  was  taken  to  avoid 
cutting  the  periosteum. 

The  weights  were  recorded  in  grams.  The  lengths  and  the  mini- 
mum diameters  of  the  bone  shafts  were  obtained  with  a  micrometer, 
the  values  given  being  the  averages  of  three  readings.  The  breaking 
strengths  were  obtained  with  an  Olsen  testing  machine,  the  usual 
precautions  being  taken  to  place  bones  of  the  same  kind  in  the  same 
position  in  the  machine,  to  measure  the  span,  and  to  observe  the  di- 
rection in  which  the  load  was  applied. 

Weights  of  the  Bones. — From  the  data  in  Table  21,  it  is  quite 
evident  that  the  weights  of  the  bones  of  the  pigs  in  Lots  II  and  III 
were  very  nearly  the  same.  The  data  fall  into  two  groups,  the  bones 
of  Pigs  5  and  16  having  been  distinctly  heavier  than  those  of  Pigs  7 
and  13.  In  general,  the  weights  of  the  humerus  and  femur  of  Pig  1, 
which  was  a  litter  mate  of  Pig  5  and  by  the  same  sire  as  Pig  16,  cor- 
responded much  more  closely  to  those  of  Pigs  7  and  13  than  to  those 
of  Pigs  5  and  16,  while  the  weights  of  the  tibia  agreed  much  more 
closely  with  those  of  Pigs  5  and  16.  The  average  values  for  Lots 
II  and  III  were  220  and  223  grams,  respectively,  and  the  value  for 
Pig  1,  202  grams. 

Lengths  and  Diameters  of  the  Bones. — The  data  for  the  lengths 
of  the  leg  bones  given  in  Table  22  show  only  slight  differences  between 
the  individual  pigs  and  the  lots.  The  diameters  of  the  bones,  expressed 
in  inches,  are  given  in  Table  23.  As  in  the  case  of  the  weights,  it  is 
quite  apparent  that  these  measurements  for  the  younger  pigs,  Nos.  7 
and  13,  were  significantly  less  than  those  for  the  older  pigs,  Nos.  5  and 
16.  Unlike  the  weights,  the  diameters  of  the  bones  of  Pig  1  were  gen- 
erally higher  than  the  corresponding  diameters  of  Pigs  7  and  13,  and 
midway  between  those  of  Pigs  5  and  16. 

Breaking  Strengths  of  the  Bones. — The  data  for  the  breaking 
strengths  of  the  leg  bones  are  given  in  Tables  24  and  25.  Again,  as 
in  the  case  of  the  weights  and  diameters  of  the  bones,  it  is  quite 
evident  that  the  breaking  strengths  of  the  bones  of  the  animals  of 
Lots  II  and  III  fall  into  two  groups,  the  bones  of  the  older  and 
heavier  pigs,  Nos.  5  and  16,  having  been  much  stronger  than  those  of 
the  younger  pigs,  Nos.  7  and  13.  In  all  cases  the  breaking  strengths  of 
the  bones  for  Pig  1  were  distinctly  less  than  those  for  any  of  the  other 
pigs.  Calculated  on  the  basis  of  100  pounds  live  weight,  the  data  again 
show  that  the  bones  of  Pig  1  had  the  lowest  breaking  strength,  altho 
the  differences  noted  within  Lots  II  and  III  were  not  significant.  If 
the  data  for  the  live  weights  of  the  pigs  (Table  9)  are  compared 
with  those  for  the  breaking  strengths  (Table  24)  with  respect  to  the 
x  and  y  axes,  the  resulting  curves  will  show  that  the  strength  of  the 
bones  increased  in  the  following  order:  Pigs  Nos.  1,  13,  7,  16,  and  5. 
That  is,  Pig  1  of  Lot  I  had  the  weakest  bones  of  all,  and,  while  for 


112  BULLETIN  No.  168  [March, 

Lots  11  and  111  the  strength  of  the  bones  increased  in  general  with 
the  live  weight,  the  bones  from  the  pigs  of  Lot  II  were  stronger  than 
those  from  the  corresponding  pigs  of  Lot  III. 

Figs  7  and  81  in  the  Appendix  show  the  appearance  of  the  cross- 
sections  of  the  leg  bones  nearest  the  point  of  breaking.  It  is  suggested 
by  these  figures  that  the  bones  of  the  pig  on  the  low-protein  ra- 
tion had  the  thinnest  walls  and  the  largest  spaces  for  marrow,  while 
those  of  the  pigs  on  the  high-protein  ration  had  the  smallest  diam- 
eters, the  thickest  walls,  and  the  smallest  spaces  for  marrow. 

Moduli  of  Rupture  of  tlie  Bones. — The  modulus  of  rupture  is  a 
measure  of  the  quality  of  the  bone  material — the  higher  the  value,  the 
better  the  quality  of  the  bone.  From  the  data  given  in  Table  26, 
it  will  be  noted  that  there  were  frequently  marked  differences  between 
the  right  and  left  bones  of  the  same  and  different  animals.  If  the 
averages  for  the  three  kinds  of  bones  are  considered,  it  seems  appar- 
ent that  the  quality  of  the  leg  bones  of  Pig  1  was  probably  some- 
what significantly  inferior  to  that  of  the  four  other  pigs.  Also,  consid- 
ering the  averages,  it  seems  probable  that  the  differences  between  the 
individuals,  and  the  lot  differences  exhibited  by  the  medium-  and  high- 
protein  lots  were  insignificant. 

Section  Moduli  of  tlie  Bones.- — The  section  moduli  represent  a 
measure  of  the  economy  of  distribution  of  the  material  with  reference 
to  the  axis  of  the  section  thru  which  the  load  is  applied,  provided 
corresponding  axes  are  chosen  for  each  test.  From  the  data  given 
in  Tables  27  and  28,  it  is  apparent  that  the  average  differences  in 
these  results  were  in  general  similar  to  those  shown  by  the  weights, 
the  diameters,  and  the  breaking  strengths.  That  is,  the  older  and 
heavier  pigs,  Nos.  5  and  16  of  Lots  II  and  III,  respectively,  showed 
higher  values  than  the  younger  and  lighter  pigs,  Nos.  7  and  13,  of 
the  same  two  lots,  while  the  value  for  Pig  1  of  Lot  I,  the  lowest, 
corresponded  more  closely  to  the  values  for  the  younger  pigs,  Nos. 
7  and  13,  than  to  those  for  the  older  pigs.  However,  in  some  in- 
stances there  were  marked  differences  between  the  right  and  left 
bones,  while  in  the  average  results  for  the  three  bones  there  were  very 
pronounced  differences  between  the  values  for  the  different  pigs  within 
the  lots. 

Calculated  on  the  basis  of  100  pounds  live  weight,  the  data  show 
that  the  section  moduli  tended  to  become  constant.  In  other  words, 
the  economic  distribution  of  the  bone  material  with  respect  to  strength 
increased  as  the  pigs  became  heavier,  regardless  of  the  differences  in 
the  rations. 


Appendix,  pages  134  and  135. 


INFLUENCE  OF  PKOTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


113 


§0 

• 

CM 

co  in      o 

T^  CM         CO 

G) 

0 

CO  O          CM 

Tj<   O            OJ 

« 

CM  (M         CM 

CM  CJ         CM 

Average 

4J 
«H 

M 

O 

•  0            ' 

•  Cl 

rH  OS          O 
•*  O5          CM 
CM  1-1         CM 

1, 

•  iH 

rH 

O 

co  co      os 

CO  0         rH 

b-  in      CD 

"*  O         CM 

3 

CM 

CXI  CM        (M 

CXI  CM         CM 

as 

be 

2 

'O 
CO 

b-  -f      in 

in  co      TJH 

00  ^         CD 

1 

CM 

CM  CM         CM 

(M  CM         1M 

M 

1 

a 

00 

CM 

•  CO 
.  Tf! 
•  CM 

IO  00         CM 
00  CO         CO 
CM  CM         CM 

I 

i. 

W 

w 

*? 

5  2 

q   be 

.s° 

CO 

••#  iH       cr: 
CM  <M        CM 

in  b-      CD 

00  •*         CD 
CM  OQ        CM 

O      /—  V 

03    =° 
^    o> 

Si 

03 

.  a 

bo 

t      fl 

3  •" 

03 

CO 

•*  O         rH 

b-  T-H          •* 

O    "~ 

0     <o 

H       OJ 

•5 

co 
I—  i 

b-  ^          CD 

rH  rH          rH 

b-  in      co 

rH  rH         rH 

Ul     0) 

Woo 
r        CO 

EH     o> 
CD     *H 

-i    £?* 

:  o 

03 

3 

<H 

GO 

to 

.  O 

co  ^*      ^^ 
t~  in      co 

CO 

iJ 

•  i—i 

rH  r\         rH 

OQ 

•*J 

H    "3 

CM'  'P 

1       CD 
0) 

CM     <g 

Q      Od 

4J 

H   PH 

^  C- 

4 

§ 

CO 

CO 

rH 

b-  ^          CO 
rH  rH         rH 

00  •*         CD 
rH  rH         rH 

•5 

H 

& 

cS 

rH 

O  rH         rH 

O  CM         rH 

1 

O 
CM 

CD  CM         •* 
(M  CM         CM 

CM  (M         CM 

merus 

45 

01 
01 
rH 

•  CM 

•^  m      •* 
co  o      co 

CM  CM        CM 

3 

H^ 

M 

-M 

§ 

O 

O  O        O 
CD  CM         ^ 

<o  o      co 
i^  eg      TH 

a 

CM 

CM  CM         CM 

CM  CM         CM 

4* 

O 

w 

MM        M 

MM        M 

MM        M 

MM         M 

"7 

MM        M 

be 

a 

be 

ns 

be 

cj 

•  rH 

rH 

co  co       j- 

PH 

1 

rHrH          » 

® 

H 

oi 

b- 

LI  1O        IO 

oo  10      to 

K 

<i 

CD 

O  «D         O 

CO  CD          CC' 

0> 

bo 

CIS 

£ 

t- 

.  ^> 

CO  CO         t» 

f 

<3 

0) 

H! 

0 

'  «o        I 

CD  co      o 

4> 

fn 

t~ 

»c  ic      to 

OJ  L"5        h- 

8 

co 

5O  CD         «D 

CO  0        O 

p 

be 

03 

CM 

(M  iH         iH 

1C  rH        CO 

K 

^ 

1-- 

l>.  (^         t^ 

t-  t-        t» 

1 

45 

<N 

•  CQ 

W  rH        « 

r* 

PH 

M- 

b- 

!  »•        ! 

t^t-^        b^ 

1 

CM 

C3  T-1          r-! 

»O  iH         CO 

M 

t- 

t^  b-         t^ 

t^  I-         t~ 

! 

0 

<3>  O        O 

fO  iH        <M 

4 

to 

10  co      10 

CD  CD        <D 

03 

-—  > 

,Q 

E^ 

+3 

«H 
<O 
A 

CO 

CD' 

.  1-1 
I  «o        I 

CX)  M        OJ 

cd  cd      «o 

i 

CO 

OJ  O        O> 

mo      <M 

a 

to 

LO  «3         >O 

CD  CO        CO 

p 

be 
i 

•* 

UTi  >O        >C 

CO  Ml        •"? 

a* 
1 

CO 

to  co      o 

CD  CO        CD 

Jumerus 

« 

3 

"*. 

to 

.w     . 

:«=>      : 

CD  CO        ^J 

CO  CO         CD 

4> 

i 

•* 

>«  in      ifl 

co  eo      -* 

i 

to 

CO  CO        CD 

CO  CD        CD 

•§ 

M 

M 

KH    K 

MM        M 

HS    H 

M 

•  (H 

PH 

rH 

a 
• 

•ot-     53 

t- 

•< 

| 

03 
CO  CO         £ 
'-"-1         g 
•< 

114 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


fc    _, 
o  .g 

CO       rrj 


ai 

I  3 

CO  CO 

:  « 

w  —  / 
J 

05 
<1 
EH 


8, 

2 

1 

0 
5>0 
03 

I 

CO 
CO 
00 

CD  in      m 

eg  co      ^ 

OS  b-         00 

ro  b-  o 
00  b-  00 

o 

00         0 

O  O  O 

s 

C5 
0) 

CO 

d 

.  CO 
•  0 
•  CO 

'  d 

b^  CO  OS 
00  b^  00 

do  d 

| 

M 

CO 
CO 
00 

CO  b-         CO 

eg  eg      eg 

OS  b-        OO 

eg  oo  o 

00  b-  OO 

O 

00        0 

o  o  o 

1 

rH 

Average 

01 

IO 
0 

ro  co       ^^ 
os  os      os 

co  o  oo 
eg  os  o 

OS  00  OS 

0 

o  o      o 

00  0 

« 

CD 

a 

6s 
d 

.  in 

•  rH 

•  os 
•  d 

CO  O  rH 
CO  OS  rH 
OS  OO  OS 

do  d 

4* 

-a 

m 

0 

o 

C7J 

in  rH         CO 

OS  05          05 

o  o  m 

eg  os  o 

OS  00  OS 

O 

o  o      o 

00  O 

EH 

Average 

1 

^  eg      co 
o  eg      rH 

OS  b-          00 

CO  OS  rH 
b~  CD  b- 

o 

d  d      o* 

00  0 

4D 

CO 
CO 

O 

'  d 

os  o  os 

in  00  rH 
b-  CO  t> 

d  d  d 

41 

a 

a 

<*  o      eg 

O  Cg          rH 
OS  b-        00 

rH  O  rH 
b-  b-  b- 

0 

d  d      d 

00  0 

Humerus 

0 

bo 

03 

01 

0 

00 

op      o 
o  to      oo 

OS  CO          b- 

eg  o  CD 

-*  m  os 

OO  b-  b~ 

0 

00        0 

00  0 

« 

ID 

M 

0 

o 

CO 

.  o 
•  b- 

os  in  b- 

TjH  TJH  rH 

00  b-  b- 

o 

'  d 

o  o  o 

t 

i 

i 

o  o      m 
o  in      eg 
os  m      b- 

CD  CO  CD 

co  m  os 

00  b-  b- 

- 

o  o      o 

O  O  O 

4* 
O 
rH 

M 

MM        M 
MM        M 

MM  M 

MM  r- 
MM  M 

bo 

fi 

rH 

• 
tt 
03 

§0 

i 
co  co       fc 

rHrH           g 

w   * 


® 
W) 
cj 
E 

t- 

CO 

oo  m      eg 

os  o      m 
eg  oo      o 

rH                 rH 

CO  rH         Tjl 

eg  o      I-H 
o  oo      os 

i-H 

B 
bJO 
03 

1 

4* 

m 

rH 

CO 

1—  1 

•00 

rH<M        fH 

^00        rH 
Ob-        <3> 

§ 

M 

00 

10 

CO 

co  co      m 

OS  CO          CD 

eg  oo      o 

rH                 rH 

iH  rH        CO 

rH  eg          rH 

o  oo      os 

rH 

ft 

| 

0 

CO 

co  in      o 

00  rH          1Q 

b-  in      co 

eg  CD      •* 

Femur 

4* 

M 

in 

•* 

•OS              • 

CD  (M        •«* 

o  co      co 
b-  in      co 

4* 

•FH 

M 

to 

CO 

CD  b-         rH 

oo  co      co 
b-  in      o 

eg  o      •* 
Tt<  co      in 

b-  in        <D 

g 

o 

CO 

oo  co       i- 

CO  00         l- 
CO  b-        O 
rH                rH 

rHCO        CO 

b-  co      in 

05  b-        00 

03 

•  IH 

EH 

M 

0 

•  rH 
•  b- 

OS  b-        OO 

4* 

00 
CD 

oo  eg      m 
co  o      oo 

CO  OO         O 
rH                rH 

O  OO        ^ 

t-  >n      co 

OS  b-         OO 

a 
be 

E 

(D 

0 
00 

o  in      b- 

-^  co      eg 

b-  rH         •* 
rH  rH          rH 

eg  -#      co 
bo  o       "^f 
co  rH       eg 

rH  rH          rH 

(O 

W 

M 

o 

0 

CO 

•  O 

•  O            • 
•  rH 

in  b-      co 

Tj<  co      m 
•*  o      eg 

rH  rH          rH 

-U 

§ 

•  fH 

M 

0 
01 

00 

O  O         O 

Tt*  co      m 

b-  rH         "* 
rH  rH         rH 

00        0 

eg  -^      co 

CO  rH         CM 
rH  rH          i-H 

3 

M 

MM         M 
MM        M 

MM        M 
MM        M 
MM        M 

.9° 

1-4 

B 
fcfi 

C3 

> 

& 

03 
CD  CO         J« 
rH  rH          ^ 

1914} 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


115 


§  ? 

ffl   .J3 


W  o 

H  TH 

§  S 

g  P, 

CO  CQ 

O  fl 

t-i  O 


0 

rt 

oq 

O  CO        CO 

rH  CO          t«j 

E 

00 

^  CQ         OO 

CO"  iH          CO* 

IS 

CO 
CO 

•^  1-\       •> 

IO   -^             Tj< 

1 

£ 

iH 

:».      : 

co  co      ^f 
cq  o      IH 

4 

10 
CO 

*  CO 

CO  CO          CO 

41 

CO 

Ob-          CO 

OS  r-J          O 

'§0 

a 

o 

00 
CO 

Tii  CD      10 

-*  cq       oo 

Cs  cq       co 

rH  IO         CO 

9 
bo 
a 

Oq 

•*  iH         b- 

o  CD      cq 

E 

co' 

OS  •*          CO 

C5  O        IO 

B 

CD 

cq  co      cs 

O  rH          O 

•0 

cq 

co  cq       cq 

co  co      co 

h 

o 

•  rH              • 

cq  10      co_ 

P 

<s 

CO 

"  CO              ' 

CO  OS         r-i 

B 

CD 

'.  W 

OS  O         O 

£ 

M1 

oq 

cq 

cq  co      co 

4> 

•* 

T*rH       cq 

rH  b-          OS 

bo 

ci 

os  10      cq 

CO  iH        OS 

M 

CO 
(M 

cq  b-      o 

co  cq      co 

O  rH          O 

CO  CO          CO 

be 
c3 

cq 

CO  OS          iH 

cq  10      co 

b 

0 

co  cq      06 

?O  IO        ^^ 

<l> 

b. 

CO 

b-  O          00 

o  o      o 

1 

* 

z 

.  o 

co  co      06 

•  iH 

9 

Tf 

OS 

o  os      os 

H 

HJ 

CO 

'  CO 

•^  CO          CO 

41 

I—I 

CO  OS          r-J 

00  TjJ         rH 

bo 

t^ 

co'  o      cq' 

cq'  t^      o 

M 

05 
CO 

b-  rH          OS 

O  rH         rH 

CD 

bO 
rt 

oq 

co  cq       oq 

iH  b-          OS 

E 

00 

OS  rH          O 

H^  b-          ^5 

Q} 

co 

Cq  b*        10 

b-  O          OS 

4 

b-  IO          CO 

10  CD        IO 

op 

S3 
M 

Tt< 

•  cq 

rH  CO        00 

CO 

*H 

C\j 

"  00 

O  bi          CO 

fl 

C? 

^o 

H^ 

O  00          OS 

S 

j 

•^ 

•  10 

CO  IO        IO 

W 

S 

0 

co  co      oo 

cq  oo      o 

bo 

•v^H 

OS  •<£          i-H    OO  b-          OC 

M 

t^ 

cq  os      co 
b-  10      co 

•*  cq        oo 
10  co      10 

4* 

O 

M 

MM        M 
MM        M 

MM         M 
MM        M 

(H 

MM         M 

_bo 

rH 

§0 

CD 

0 
bo 

• 

^ 

b-CO         IO 

CO  tH          OO 

S 

4 

oq 

rH 

tH  iH         rH 

^^  IO       "^ 

rH  rH         rH 

1 

^ 

00 

.^ 

10  Cq         00 

i 

5 

OJ 

rH 

;rn        ; 

IO  CO         IO 

iH  iH         iH 

4* 

W 

b-  Cd         rH 

00  rH         OS 

^^ 

_bp 

oq 

rH 

rH  iH         rH 

CO  •*         CO 
iH  rH          r-i 

0) 

£ 

rt 

CD 
1 

«* 

CO  OS         iH 

O<M         iH 

9 

a 

o 

rQ 

E 

1 

rH 
r-1 

co  o      cq 

rH  iH         iH 

cq  -^       co 

rH  iH         iH 

=(H 
0 

^ 

10 

.10 

OS  iH         »O 

1  ^ 

<o 

3 

O 
rH 

Io"      ; 

.-H 

CO  IO         •* 

iH  tH          rH 

S  i 

^ 

CO 

co  •*      co 

iH  -^         b- 

IH      "g, 

ft.        °° 
0      ^ 

S 

oq 

iH 

co  IH      eq 

iH  rH         rH 

O  CO          TH 
rH  iH          iH 

l=>       00 

1 

0 

b-  rH         CS 

cq  o       IH 

PH        p 

^       O 
& 

E 

9 

IO 

rH  rH         TH 

OO  CO          b- 
rH  rH          rH 

0      «H 

h-t 

03 

•  pH 

£ 

10 

•OS 

b-  I-         b- 

G       z~. 
O     cd 

9 

10 

iH 

ITH         ; 

b-  b-         b- 

rH  rH          rH 

f  1 

1     fi 

41 

CO 

b-CO          IO 

b-  •*          IO 

CO      & 

N  a 

S  '" 

bo 
1 

rH 

•*  oo      co 

iH  rH          iH 

06  •*'      to" 

rH  iH          rH 

M  's 

£    8 

H      cc 

SD 

CO 

O  O)        ^ 

CO  iH          CO 

R 

1 

S 

p 

rH 
rH 

co"  Tji       io" 

rH  iH          rH 

CO  IO          HH 
rH  rH           iH 

-t-> 
1 

CQ 
9 

^ 

•  0> 

oo  b-      cq 

CD 
« 

W 

r3 

0-1 
l-( 

I  rH            * 

T*   10              IO 

iH  rH         iH 

4* 

03 

O  CS        "^ 

IO  IO         IO 

M 

0 
rH 

co  cq      -^ 

iH  iH        iH 

CQ  ^^         C^) 
rH  iH          r-i 

S 

M 

33  3 

be 

S 

iH 

03 
"J 

1 

S3     | 

116 


BULLETIN  No.  163 


[March, 


02 


H 

^  55 

«  s 

<!  3 


CD 

bo 

0) 

g 

9 

co 
o 

oq  oo 

oco 

f-IO 

IO 

CO 

0 

os  •* 
co  co 

O  0 

0 

0 

O  0 

o 

0  0 

0 

0 

•CO 

• 

on? 

0 

a> 

0 

•  o 

• 

0^ 

0 

J 

0 

d 

°0* 

c 

§r     ;g 

f-100 
00  CD 

s 

10  oo 

OS  IO 

{£ 

«      p 

o  o 

o 

0  0 

0 

> 

Q 

oo 

o 

d  d 

o 

I 

45 

3 

to 

to 

o 

•  1-1 
•  0            • 

00  b- 

b-  10 

oo 

co 

0 

d 

0 

'  d 

00 

g 

1-1 

i-l  IO 

CO 

cq  os 

10 

oft 

1C 

oo  co 

i—  1  IO 

00 

•  M 

o 

00 

o 

rH  O 

0 

M 

o 

0  0 

o 

O  O 

o 

§0 
03 

IO 
IO 

co  os 

r-i  IO 

t*-  'oo  os 

00    CO  IO 

CC 

CD 

B 

O  IrH  O 

o 

O  0 

o 

5 

d 

00        0 

0  0 

o 

.2 

-»a 

a 

:s 

. 

1-1  1-f 

t-  IO 

iH 
CO 

a 

EH 

S 

1 

:d 

• 

0  0 

d  d 

O 

d 

1 

O    CO  CO 

CO    i-l  10 

CO 

00 

CO  b- 

co  co 

co 

CO 

i 

0    i-l  0 

o 

0  0 

o 

d 

o  o  o 

d  d  o" 

-a 


pq 
o 

o     > 

«  « 

co 

&<     ^ 
O      O 


II 


S> 

0 

OS  b- 

CO 

TtfTH 

ns 

0  b- 

03 

0  b- 

or. 

o 

i-l  O 

O 

IH  O 

O 

4 

0 

0  0 

o 

0  0 

0 

g 

^ 

10 

CO 

•IO 

•co 

; 

oo  oo 

05  CO 

CO 

or 

ID 

o 

•  o 

0  0 

O 

H 

^ 

0 

'  d 

o  o 

e 

H 

I 

10 

0 

os  o 

0  OS 

iH  0 

OS 
OS 

o 

rH  0 
iH  CO 
iH  O 

05 
0 

o 

O  0 

0 

OO 

0 

3 

M 

aa 

a 

SH 
a 

i—  i 

i—  i 

[ 

CD 

be 

IO 

CO 

co  »0        05 

Tfi  CO            CO 

00        0 

t-  IO        CO 

re  co        co 
00        0 

1 

0 

o  o      o 

o  o      o 

a 

i 

e 

10 

CO 

O 

•  co         • 

•  0 

CO  CO          CO 
00        0 

I 

$ 

O 

'  d 

do      d 

1 

CC 

ro 
0 

co  co      O) 

^  CO          CO 
O  O        0 

o  oc      as 

^^  CO         CO 

o  o      o 

M 

0 

00        0 

O  O        0 

1 

CC 

CO 
0 

co  co       co 
oo      o 

CO  CO          CO 
O  0        0 

•4 

0 

00        0 

do*      d 

P 

ti 

* 

£ 

o 

•  CO              • 

•  o        * 

W  i-l        i-H 

co  co      co 

O  0        O 

# 

o 

0 

do      o* 

4* 

-a 

OJ 
01 

0 

^^  co      co 

CO  CO          CO 

o  o      o 

b-cq      oj 

^  CO          CO 

o  o      o 

M 

0 

00         O 

OO        0 

CD 

bo 

OS 

o 

eq 

0 

O5O          05 

•^  co       co 
00        O 

cc  cq       o 
cq  co      co 
o  o      o 

0 

o  o      o 

00         0 

05 

-2 

45 

C3 
0 

•  CO 
.  o 

os  oo      oo 
cq  cq       cq 
o  o      o 

EH 

•3 

o 

•  d 

OO        0 

•3 

10 

CO 

o 

OJOJ        OJ 
^^  CQ         CO 
0  O        O 

b-b-      cq 

cq  co      co 

00         0 

M 

0 

o  o      o 

00         0 

• 

I 

3 

0 

CO  OJ        CQ 

•^  CO          ^t* 

oo      o 

CO  O         i-l 

o  o      o 

0 

0  O         0 

00        0 

g 

45 
* 

00 

CO 
0 

•  CO 
•  CO 

•  o 

iH  b-        OJ 

^^  CO         CO 
00        0 

p 

w 

o 

'  d 

o  o      o 

ID 

^5 

^4  ^4          ^4 

o  o      o 

o  o      o 

M 

0 

O  O        0 

do      o 

S 

M 

aa  a 

ga  s 

S 

rl 

• 

? 

i 

1914]  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  117 

SUMMARY 

1.  Plan  of  Experiment. — Of  fourteen  carefully  selected  Berk- 
shire pigs  weighing  upon  an  average  51  pounds,  two  were  slaughtered 
at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment.    The  remaining  twelve  were  then 
divided  into  three  lots  of  four  each  in  such  a  way  that  all  of  the  lots 
were  as  nearly  alike  as  possible  in  regard  to  age,  ancestry,  weight, 
and  condition.    Lot  I  was  fed  a  low-protein  ration;  Lot  II,  a  medium- 
protein  ration;  and  Lot  III,  a  high-protein  ration.     The  rations  con- 
sisted of  ground  corn,  blood  meal,  and  rock  phosphate.  The  pigs  of  the 
three  lots  were  kept  and  fed  under  exactly  the  same  conditions  thruout 
the  experiment.    Each  pig  was  fed  separately.    Two  animals  of  Lots 
II  and  III,  and  one  of  Lot  I  were  subjected  to  a  detailed  slaughter 
test. 

2.  Digestible    Nutrients    Consumed.- — The    following   average 
amounts  of  digestible  nutrients  were  consumed  daily  per  100  pounds 
live  weight  by  the  pigs  slaughtered  at  the  end  of  the  experiment :  Pig 
1  of  the  low-protein  lot — protein  0.32,  carbohydrates  1.55,  and  fat 
0.061  pound;  Pigs  5  and  7  of  the  medium-protein  lot — protein  0.70, 
carbohydrates  1.44,  and  fat  0.059  pound ;   and  Pigs  16  and  13  of  the 
high-protein  lot — protein   0.94,    carbohydrates   1.32,    and   fat   0.056 
pound. 

3.  Energy  Values  of  Digestible  Nutrients. — The  average  energy- 
values  of  the  digestible    nutrients    of    the    feedstuffs  consumed  per 
pig  per  100  pounds  live  weight  were  as  follows :  Pig  1  of  Lot  I,  3.79 ; 
Pigs  5  and  7  of  Lot  II,  4.28 ;  and  Pigs  16  and  13  of  Lot  III,  4.49 
therms. 

4.  Ash  and  Phosphorus  Consumed. — The  following  average  quan- 
tities of  ash  and  phosphorus  were  consumed  daily  per  100  pounds 
live  weight:   by  Pig  1  of  the  low-protein  lot — ash  71.24,  and  phos- 
phorus 11.03  grams ;  by  Pigs  5  and  7  of  the  medium-protein  lot — ash 
64.24,  and  phosphorus  9.65  grams;  and  by  Pigs  16  and  13  of  the  high- 
protein  lot — ash  59.06,  and  phosphorus  8.73  grams. 

5.  Live  Weights. — The  live  weights  at  the  time  of  slaughtering 
were  as  follows :    Pig  1  of  Lot  I,  180.1  pounds ;  Pigs  5  and  7  of  Lot 

II,  249.4  and  199.6  pounds,  respectively;  and  Pigs  16  and  13  of  Lot 

III,  248.4  and  189.3  pounds,  respectively.    Pigs  7  and  13  were  twenty 
days  younger  than  Pigs  1,  5,  and  16. 

6.  Gains  in  Weight. — The  average  daily  gains  were  as  follows: 
Pig  1  of  Lot  I,  0.64  pound ;  Pigs  5  and  7  of  Lot  II,  0.96  pound ;  and 
Pigs  16  and  13  of  Lot  III,  0.94  pound. 

7.  Physical   Condition. — All  the  pigs  of   the  low-protein  lot 
except  No.  1  lacked  appetite.     With  the  exception  of  Pig  4,  they 
were  sluggish  and  walked  with  difficulty.     All  appeared  unthrifty 
and  underfed.     Three  of  the  four  pigs  of  the  low-protein  lot  died 
during  the  experiment,  apparently  as  the  result  of  poor  nourishment. 
The  pigs  of  the  medium-  and  the  high-protein  lots  were  active.    They 


118  BULLETIN  No.  Ib8  [March, 

appeared  to  be  thrifty  and  in  good  condition  for  animals  kept  in  pens, 
and  the  only  abnormal  physical  condition  they  exhibited  was  stiffness 
during  extremely  cold  weather. 

8.  Blood    Examination. — The    differences    between    the    values 
within  the  lots  were  so  great  in  the  percentage  of  hemoglobin,  in  the 
number  of  red  cells,  and  in  the  differential  count  in  percent  of  the  total 
white  cells,  that  it  was  impossible  to  make  out  significant  differences 
between  the  lots.     The  lot  averages  for  the  white  blood  cells  were: 
Lot  I,  26,222 ;  Lot  II,  19.339 ;  and  Lot  III,  20,405.     The  number  of 
leucocytes  in  the  blood  of  the  pigs  of  Lot  I  was  unusually  large  and 
may  have  indicated  an  abnormal  condition. 

9.  Post-Mortem   Examination. — The   post-mortem   examination 
demonstrated  that  the  kidneys  of  the  three  pigs  of  the  low-protein 
lot  subjected  to  examination  were  clearly  and  unmistakably  affected 
with   chronic   paranchymatous   nephritis,    while    none    of   the    pigs 
of  the  medium-  and  high-protein  lots  were  so  affected.     The  weight, 
the  length,  and  the  width  of  the  kidneys  of  the  pigs  on  the  low-protein 
ration  were  significantly  less  than  the  corresponding  values  for  the 
kidneys  of  the  pigs  on  the  medium-  and  the  high-protein  rations.   The 
livers  of  the  pigs  on  the  low-protein  ration  were  distinctly  smaller 
than  those  of  Lots  II  and  III,  but  in  other  respects,  appeared  to  be 
normal.    There  was  nothing  abnormal  in  the  other  organs  that  could 
be  attributed  to  the  rations. 

10.  Judging   of  Dressed   Carcasses. — Pig  1  of  the  low-protein 
lot,  Pig  7  of  the  medium-protein  lot,  and  Pig  13  of  the  high-protein 
lot  were  classed  as  "light  loin"  or  "shipper"  hogs;    Pig  5  of  the 
medium-protein  lot,  as  "light  butcher;"  and  Pig  16  of  the  high- 
protein  lot,  as  "medium  butcher."     The  dressed  carcass  of  Pig  1 
had  probably  less  fat  on  the  sides,  brisket,  and  flanks  than  the  car- 
casses of  the  pigs  of  Lots  II  and  III. 

11.  Judging  of   Cross-Sections  of  Half-Carcasses. — It  seemed 
apparent  from  the  examination  of  the  cross-sections  that  the  car- 
cass of  Pig  1  of  the  low-protein  lot  differed  from  the  carcasses  of 
the  pigs  of  the  medium-  and  high-protein  lots  as  follows :  first,  its  fat 
and  lean  were  somewhat  darker  in  color;   second,  its  fat  was  softer; 
and  third,  the  marrow  of  its  bones  was  lighter  in  color.    It  was  im- 
possible to  make  out  definite  group  differences  between  the  cross-sec- 
tions of  the  carcasses  of  the  animals  of  Lots  II  and  III. 

12.  Measurements  of  the   Cross-Sections  of  Half -Carcasses. — 
From  the  measurements  of  the  cross-sections  of  the  sides  of  the  car- 
casses it  seemed  apparent  that  the  carcass  of  Pig  1  of  the  low-protein 
lot  showed  less  fat  than  the  carcasses  of  the  other  four  pigs,  tho  prac- 
tically the  same  amount  of  lean. 

13.  Weights  of  Dressed  Carcasses. — There  were  no   significant 
differences  between  the  weights  of  the  carcasses  of  the   different 
lots  of  pigs  other  than  those  due  to  differences  in  the  live  weights 


1914]  INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  119 

of  the  animals  when  slaughtered.  The  weights  of  dressed  pork 
in  percent  of  the  live  weight  yielded  by  the  five  animals  slaughtered 
were  as  follows :  Pig  1  of  the  low-protein  lot,  71.04 ;  Pigs  5  and  7  of 
the  medium-protein  lot,  70.87  and  72.08  percent,  respectively;  and 
Pigs  16  and  13  of  the  high-protein  lot,  73.13  and  68.67  percent, 
respectively. 

14.  Weights  of  Cuts  of  Pork. — The  weights   of  the   cuts  of 
pork — ham,  shoulder,  and  side — varied  in  general  directly  as  the  live 
weights.    The  average  weights  of  the  three  cuts  for  the  five  animals 
in  percent  of  the  live  weight  were :   hams,  7.88 ;  shoulders,  9.90 ;  and 
sides,  17.79  percent. 

15.  Weights  of  Boneless  Meat  and  Skeletons. — The  weights  of  the 
boneless  meat  in  the  cuts  varied  directly  as  the  net  live  weight  of  the 
pigs.    The  average  values  for  all  five  pigs  for  the  boneless  meat  were : 
ham,  27.58  pounds;  shoulder,  34.54  pounds;  and  side,  62.98  pounds. 
The  weights  of  the  skeleton  showed  marked  differences  within  the  lots, 
but  the  lot  averages  agreed  closely. 

16.  Weights  of  Blood. — Calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  net  live 
weights,  the  amounts  of  blood  were  fairly  constant  for  the  five  pigs, 
ranging  from  2.89  percent  for  Pig  5  to  3.38  percent  for  Pig  13,  with 
an  average  for  all  of  3.15  percent.     The  percentage  of  blood  for 
the  animals  of  the  control  group  was  distinctly  higher,  being  4.98 
percent. 

17.  Weights  of  Heart,  Liver,  Spleen,  Pancreas,  Gall  Bladder,  and 
Tongue. — The    weights    of    the  heart,    liver,  spleen,    pancreas,  gall 
bladder,  and  tongue  of  Pigs  1,  5,  7,  16,  and  13  varied  more  or  less 
directly  with  the  live  weights  of  the  animals.    Expressed  in  percent 
of  the  net  live  weight,  the  results  for  the  different  pigs  were  quite  simi- 
lar, except  in  the  case  of  the  livers.     The  percentage  values  for  the 
younger  pigs,  Nos.  26  and  44,    were  distinctly  higher  than  those  for 
the  older  animals. 

18.  Weights  of  Urinary  Organs  and  Organs  of  Central  Nervous 
System. — The  weights  of  the  kidneys  of  the  pigs  of  the  low-protein  lot 
were  about  50  percent  lower  than  those  of  the  pigs  of  the  medium-  and 
high-protein  lots.    The  data  for  the  other  urinary  organs  and  for  the 
organs  of  the  central  nervous  system  did  not  show  any  lot  differ- 
ences that  seem  to  be  significant.    In  the  case  of  the  pigs  of  the  control 
lot,  the  percentage  values  for  the  kidneys,  brain,  and  spinal  cord  were 
higher  than  those  for  the  older  and  more  mature  pigs. 

19.  Weights,  Lengths,  and  Diameters  of  Bones. — The  weights  of 
the  bones  varied  in  general  directly  as  the  live  weights  of  the  animals. 
The  differences  between  the  lots  in  the  lengths  and  diameters  of  the 
bones  were  slight. 

20.  Breaking   Strengths   of   Bones. — The  leg  bones  of  the  pig 
of  the  low-protein  lot  were  thinner  walled  and  had  a  larger  space 
for  marrow  than  those  of  any  of  the  four  other  pigs.     Further,  the 


120  BULLETIN  No.  168  [March, 

bones  of  the  pigs  of  the  high-protein  lot  had  thicker  walls  and  smaller 
spaces  for  marrow  than  those  of  the  pigs  of  the  medium-protein  lot. 
The  breaking  strengths  of  the  bones  of  Pig  1  of  Lot  I  were  in  all 
cases  lower  than  those  of  any  of  the  other  pigs. 

21.  Moduli  of  Rupture  of  Bones. — From  the  average  data  for 
the  moduli  of  rupture,  it  seems  probable  that  the  quality  of  the 
leg  bones  of  the  pig  of  the  low-protein  lot  was  significantly  inferior 
to  that  of  the  four  other  pigs,  and  that  there  was  little  difference  be- 
tween the  values  for  the  pigs  of  Lots  II  and  III. 

22.  Section  Moduli  of  Bones. — The  average  values  for  the  sec- 
tion moduli   of   the   bones   of   the  older   and   heavier  pigs,   Nos.    5 
and  16  of  Lots  II  and  III,  were  higher  than  those  of  the  younger  and 
lighter  pigs,  Nos.  7  and  13,  while  those  for  Pig  1  of  Lot  I  were  the 
lowest.    Calculated  on  the  basis  of  100  pounds  live  weight,  the  section 
moduli  tended  to  become  constant,  i.  e.,  the  economic  distribution  of 
the  material  increased  proportionally  with  the  live  weight. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  conclusions  drawn  from  the  experimental  data  reported  in 
this  bulletin  were  as  follows: 

1.  A  daily  ration  of  ground  corn,  blood  meal,  and  an  ample 
amount  of  calcium  phosphate,  containing  only  0.32  pound  of  digestible 
protein,  and  yielding  only  3.79  therms  of  metabolizable  energy  per  100 
pounds  live  weight,  is  not  sufficient  for  the  normal  nutrition  of  young, 
growing  pigs.    It  is  impossible  to  account  for  this  fact  definitely,  but 
it  is  probable  that  the  ration  either  does  not  contain  enough  of  the 
right  kind  of  protein  or  does  not  yield  enough  energy., 

2.  Daily  rations  of  ground  corn,  blood  meal,  and  an  ample  amount 
of  calcium  phosphate,  containing  respectively  0.70  aid  0.94  pound  of 
digestible  protein,  and  yielding  respectively  4.28  and  4.49  therms  of 
metabolizable  energy  per  100  pounds  live  weight,  are  sufficient  for 
the  normal  nutrition  of  young,  growing  pigs. 

3.  The  difference  between  0.70  and  0.94  pound  of  digestible  pro- 
tein and  4.28  and  4.49  therms  of  metabolizable  energy  per  100  pounds 
live  weight  per  day  in  a  ration  consisting  of  ground  corn,  blood  meal, 
and  an  ample  amount  of  calcium  phosphate  does  not  exert  any  appar- 
ent effect  upon  the  nutrition  of  young  growing  pigs. 


1914}  INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS  121 

These  experiments  in  regard  to  the  influence  of  the  quantity  of 
protein  consumed  by  growing  pigs  on  the  development  of  their  bodies 
will  be  continued  by  this  station  to  further  confirm  the  results  here 
reported. 


The  authors  wish  to  acknowledge  their  indebtedness  to  Profes- 
sors Wm.  Dietrich  and  L.  D.  Hall  for  helpful  suggestions  and  as- 
sistance in  the  planning  and  conducting  of  this  experiment,  and  to 
Messrs.  P.  A.  Hoffman  and  W.  H.  Balis  for  much  aid  in  the  routine 
work.  They  desire  also  to  express  to  Miss  Leonora  Perry  their 
appreciation  of  her  very  efficient  editorial  criticism. 


122 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


APPENDIX 

TABLE  1. — LIVE  WEIGHTS,  GAINS,  AND  AMOUNTS  OF  FEEDS  CONSUMED 

LOT  I,  LOW-PROTEIN  EATION 
(Eesults  expressed  in  pounds  per  period  of  28  days) 


Ani- 
mal 

Per- 
iod 

Date 

Live  weight 

Feeds  consumed  daily 
per  100  pounds  live 
weight 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

Total 
weights 
offeeds 
perlOO 
pounds 
gain 

Begin- 
ning 
of 
period 

Aver- 
age 
for 
period 

Ground 
corn 

Blood 
meal 

Total 

1 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan:  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-  June  17 

67.9 
82.6 
99.0 
121.8 
137.5 
151.4 

74.89 
92.30 
110.75 
130.13 
144.30 
163.56 

3.17 
3.12 
2.59 
1.89 
1.57 
1.42 

0.10 
0.11 
0.20 
0.27 
0.32 
0.33 

3.26 
3.23 
2.79 
2.16 
1.89 
1.75 

0.52 
0.59 
0.81 
0.56 
0.49 
0.82 

466.0 
508.8 
379.1 
502.2 
550.4 
348.9 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

110.0 

119.32 

2.29 

0.22 

2.51 

0.63 

459.2 

3l 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21, 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

51.9 
^63.7 
76.5 
93.5 
84.0 

58.12 
71.22 
83.62 
91.74 

78.87 

3.26 
3.15 
2.54 
1.16 
1.91 

0.10 
0.11 
0.20 
0.18 
0.06 

3.36 
3.26 
2.74 
1.34 
1.98 

0.46 
0.41 
0.56 
-0.22 
-0.71 



Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

73.9 

76.71 

2.40 

0.13 

2.54 

0.10 

.... 

4- 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

42.4 
49.0 
52.5 
49.7 
54.0 
47.7 

45.92 
51.90 
50.60 
52.52 
51.22 
46.36 

3.35 
2.53 
0.90 
1.52 
0.57 
0.60 

0.10 
0.11 
0.12 
0.24 
0.19 
0.32 

3.45 
2.65 
1.02 
1.76 
0.76 
0.92 

0.23 
0.13 
-0.11 
0.19 
-0.27 
-0.07 

i 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

46.2 

49.75 

1.58 

0.18 

1.76 

0.02 

.... 

*Died  May  30,  before  experiment  closed. 
2Died  June  19,  before  experiment  closed. 


1914} 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


123 


TABLE  2. — LIVE  WEIGHTS,  GAINS,  AND  AMOUNTS  OF  FEEDS  CONSUMED 

LOT  II,  MEDIUM-PROTEIN  EATION 
(Eesults  expressed  in  pounds  per  period  of  28  days) 


Ani- 
mal 

Per- 
iod 

Date 

Live  weight 

Feeds  consumed  daily 
per  100  pounds  live 
weight 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

Total 
weights 
of  feeds 
perlOO 
pounds 
gain 

Begin- 
ning 
of 
period 

Aver- 
age 
for 
period 

Ground 
corn 

Blood 
meal 

Total 

5 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

Dee.  25-  Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

62.9 
90.8 
113.7 
148.0 
176.5 
206.9 

75.05 
103.97 
130.91 
161.61 
190.95 
228.00 

3.15 

2.87 
2.35 
1.68 
1.59 
1.23 

0.68 
0.66 
0.73 
0.85 
0.86 
0.90 

3.83 
3.53 
3.08 
2.53 
2.45 
2.13 

1.00 
0.82 
1.22 
1.02 
1.08 
1.21 

287.9 
449.7 
328.9 
401.1 
431.0 
400.6 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

133.1 

148.41 

2.14 

0.78 

2.92 

1.06 

383.2 

7 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-  Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

49.9 
71.4 
103.7 
121.6 
144.0 
168.5 

58.91 
82.19 
107.86 
132.90 
154.65 
183.77 

3.15 
2.95 
2.36 
1.58 
1.50 
1.14 

0.69 
0.67 
0.73 
0.82 
P.83 
0.80 

3.84 
3.62 
3.09 
2.40 
2.33 
1.94 

0.77 
0.85 
0.94 
0.80 
0.87 
0.89 

293.8 
250.8 
354.4 
399.2 
411.0 
400.6 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

109.8 

120.05 

2.11 

0.76 

2.87 

0.85 

368.3 

8 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dee.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

49.4 
74.6 
101.6 
114.3 
130.5 
146.5 

60.89 
83.77 
103.39 
123.57 
135.66 
151.65 

3.08 
2.66 
1.93 
1.14 
1.02 
1.66 

0.65 
0.58 
0.68 
0.82 
0.88 
0.73 

3.73 
3.24 
2.61 
1.96 
1.90 
2.39 

0.90 
0.66 
0.76 
0.58 
0.57 
0.30 

252.6 
411.0 
355.7 
420.1 
451.2 
706.9 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

102.8 

109.82 

1.91 

0.72 

2.64 

0.63 

432.9 

Aver.  Lot  n 

Dec.  25-June  17 

115.2 

126.09 

2.05 

0.75 

2.81 

0.85 

394.8 

124 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


TABLE  3. —  LIVE  WEIGHTS,  GAINS,  AND  AMOUNTS  OF  FEEDS  CONSUMED 

LOT  III,  HIGH-PROTEIN  EATION 
(Besults  expressed  in  pounds  per  period  of  28  days) 


Ani- 
mal 

Per- 
iod 

Date 

Live  weight 

Feeds  consumed  daily 
per  100  pounds  live 
weight 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain 

Total 
weights 
of  feeds 
perlOO 
pounds 
gain 

Begin- 
ning 
of 
period 

Aver- 
age 
for 
period 

Ground 
corn 

Blood 
meal 

Total 

16 

1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-  Jan.  21 
Jan.  22  -Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

62.9 
94.7 
128.0 
161.0 
195.5 
223.5 

77.19 
111.40 
146.01 
177.51 

207.75 
234.46 

3.10 
2.69 
2.13 
1.56 
1.31 
0.71 

1.11 
1.03 
1.11 
1.25 
1.16 
0.97 

4.22 
3.72 
3.23 
2.81 
2.47 
1.68 

1.14 
1.19 
1.18 
1.23 
1.00 
0.71 

285.9 
348.8 
400.8 
405.2 
513.7 
555.4 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

144.3 

159.05 

1.92 

1.10 

3.02 

1.07 

418.3 

13 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-  Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

44.9 
60.4 
81.7 
107.3 
133.0 
158.1 

51.41 
70.72 
94.32 
120.68 
142.56 
172.50 

2.84 
2.66 
2.35 
1.83 
1.24 
1.07 

1.00 
1.01 
1.16 
1.30 
1.20 
1.17 

3.84 
3.66 
3.51 
3.13 
2.44 
2.25 

0.56 
0.76 
0.91 
0.92 
0.90 
0.89 

355.2 
341.6 
361.9 
411.9 
388.2 
436.5 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

97.6 

108.70 

2.00 

'  1.14 

3.14 

0.82 

382.5 

15 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

62.9 
92.3 
121.5 
150.6 
179.0 
197.5 

76.47 
106.85 
138.31 
164.50 
189.93 
201.79 

3.10 
2.61 
2.05 
1.52 
1.25 
0.42 

1.11 
0.98 
0.99 
1.07 
1.10 
0.29 

4.21 
3.59 
3.04 
2.59 
2.35 
0.71 

1.05 
1.04 
1.04 
1.02 
0.66 
0.18 

306.4 
368.1 
405.4 
419.7 
675.7 
802.2 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

134.0 

146.31 

1.82 

0.92 

2.75 

0.83 

496.2 

Aver.  Lot  m 

Dec.  25-June  17 

125.3 

138.02 

1.91 

1.05 

2.97 

0.91 

432.3 

1914} 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


125 


TABLE  4. —  AMOUNTS  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED 

LOT  I,  LOW-PROTEIN  RATION 
(Results  expressed  in  pounds  and  therms  per  period  of  28  days) 


Ani- 
mal 

Per- 
iod 

Date 

Digestible   nutrients   consumed 
daily  per  100  pounds  live  weight 

Energy 
of  di- 
gestible 
nu- 
trients 
per  100 
pounds 
live 
weight 

Nutri- 
tive 
ratio 

Dry 
sub- 
stance 

Protein 
(N  x 
6.25) 

Carbo- 
hy- 
drates 

Fat 

3 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

Dee.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Apr.  16-Apr.  18 
Men.  19-May  13 
May  14-  June  17 

11*. 
2.564 
2.541 
2.185 
1.691 
1.476 
1.366 

Ibs. 
0.285 
0.295 
0.322 
0.326 
0.336 
0.337 

Ibs. 
2.140 
2.109 
1.747 
1.275 
1.063 
0.958 

Ibs. 
0.083 
0.082 
0.069 
0.051 
0.042 
0.038 

therms 
4.90 
4.86 
4.18 
3.23 
2.82 
2.61 

1:8.2 
1:7.8 
1:5.9 
1:4.3 
1:3.4 
1:3.1 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

1.970 

0.317 

1.549 

0.061 

3.77 

1:5.3 

31 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

2.639 
2.565 
2.148 
1.050 
1.553 

0.296 
0.298 
0.320 
0.211 
0.176 

2.202 
2.130 
1.713 
0.783 
1.293 

0.086 
0.083 
0.068 
0.032 
0.050 

5.05 
4.90 
4.11 
2.01 
2.97 

1:8.1 
1:7.8 
1:5.8 
1:4.1 
1:8.0 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

1.991 

0.260 

1.624 

0.064 

3.81 

1:6.8 

42 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Jan.  21 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

2.708 
2.073 
0.797 
1.379 
0.597 
0.717 

0.299 
0.254 
0.148 
0.278 
0.179 
0.271 

2.263 
1.708 
0.607 
1.029 
0.386 
0.409 

0.088 
0.067 
0.024 
0.041 
0.016 
0.017 

5.18 
3.96 
1.52 
2.64 
1.14 
1.37 

1:8.2 
1:7.3 
1:4.5 
1:4.0 
1:2.4 
1:1.6 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

1.378 

0.238 

1.067 

0.042 

2.63 

1:4.9 

*Died  May  30,  before  experiment  closed. 
2Died  June  19,  before  experiment  closed. 


126 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


TABLE  5. —  AMOUNTS  OP  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED 

LOT  II,  MEDIUM-PROTEIN  EATION 
(Eesults  expressed  in  pounds  and  therms  per  period  of  28  days) 


Ani- 
mal 

Per- 
iod 

Date 

Digestible  nutrients  consumed 
daily  per  100  pounds  live  weight 

Energy 
of  di- 
gestible 
nu- 
trients 
per  100 
pounds 
live 
weight 

Nutri- 
tive 
ratio 

Dry 
sub- 
stance 

Protein 
(N  x 
6.25) 

Carbo- 
hy- 
drates 

Fat 

5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dee.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  2»-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Men.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

Ibs. 
2.986 
2.755 
2.396 
1.957 
1.896 
1.647 

lb*. 
0.702 
0.673 
0.685 
0.725 
0.728 
0.734 

Ibs. 
2.128 
1.939 
1.589 
1.134 
1.073 
0.831 

Ibs. 
0.085 
0.079 
0.065 
0.047 
0.045 
0.036 

therms 
5.71 
5.27 
4.59 
3.74 
3.63 
3.15 

1:3.3 
1:3.1 
1:2.5 
1:1.7 
1:1.6 
1:1.2 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

2.273 

0.708 

1.449 

0.059 

4.35 

1:2.2 

1 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

2.996 
2.823 
2.408 
1.864 
1.799 
1.497 

0.710 
0.684 
0.687 
0.700 
0.699 
0.653 

2.130 
1.993 
1.597 
1.071 
1.010 
0.770 

0.086 
0.081 
0.065 
0.045 
0.042 
0.033 

5.73 
5.40 
4.60 
3.57 
3.44 
2.86 

1:3.3 
1:3.2 
1:2.5 
1:1.7 
1:1.6 
1:1-3 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

2.231 

0.689 

1.428 

0.059 

4.27 

1:2.3 

8 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Jan.  21 
Jan.  22-Feb.  18 
Feb.  19-Mch.  18 
Mch.  19-Apr.  15 
Apr.  16-May  13 
May  14-June  17 

2.913 
2.528 
2.029 
1.516 
1.464 
1.861 

0.680 
0.601 
0.624 
0.668 
0.703 
0.643 

2.080 
1.795 
1.302 
0.773 
0.690 
1.123 

0.084 
0.072 
0.054 
0.033 
0.030 
0.047 

5.57 

4.83 
3.88 
2.90 
2.80 
3.56 

1:3.3 
1:3.3 
1:2.3 
1:1.3 
1:1.1 
1:1.9 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

2.052 

0.653 

1.294 

0.053 

3.92 

1:2.2 

Aver.  Lot  n 

Dec.  25-June  17 

2.185 

0.683 

1.390 

0.057 

4.18 

1:2.2 

1914] 


INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


127 


TABLE  6. —  AMOUNTS  OF  DIGESTIBLE  NUTRIENTS  CONSUMED 

LOT  III,  HIGH-PROTEIN  EATION 
(Eesults  expressed  in  pounds  and  therms  per  period  of  28  days) 


Ani- 
mal 

Per- 
iod 

Date 

Digestible   nutrients   consumed 
daily  per  100  pounds  live  weight 

Energy 
of  di- 
gestible 
nu- 
trients 
per  100 
pounds 
live 
weight 

Nutri- 
tive 
ratio 

Dry 
sub- 
stance 

Protein 
(N  x 

6.25) 

Carbo- 
hy- 
drates 

Fat 

16 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-Junel7 
Jan.  22-  Jan.  21 
Feb.  19-Feb.  18 
Meh.  19-Mch.  18 
Apr.  16-Apr.  15 
May  14-May  13 

Ibs. 
3.278 
2.888 
2.505 
2.169 
1.904 
1.289 

Its, 
1.013 
0.924 
0.942 
1.010 
0.927 
0.749 

Ibs. 
2.096 
1.817 
1.437 
1.052 
0.885 
0.479 

ibs. 
0.086 
0.075 
0.060 
0.046 
0.039 
0.023 

therms 
6.27 
5.52 
4.79 
4.15 
3.64 
2.47 

1:2.3 
1:2.1 
1:1.7 
1:1.1 
1:1.0 
1:0.7 

Average  

Dec.  25-June  17 

2.339 

0.927 

1.294 

0.055 

4.47 

1:1.5 

13 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-June  17 
Jan.  22-Jan.  21 
Feb.  19-Feb.  18 
Meh.  19-Mch.  18 
Apr.  16-Apr.  15 
May  14-May  13 

2.985 
2.847 
2.720 
2.418 
1.879 
1.728 

0.914 
0.907 
0.998 
l.OtiS 
0.952 
0.919 

1.918 
1.794 
1.585 
1.235 
0.837 
0.726 

0.079 
0.074 
0.067 
0.053 
0.037 
0.033 

5.71 
5.44 
5.20 
4.62 
3.59 
3.31 

1:2.3 
1:2.2 
1:1.7 
1:1.3 
1:1.0 
1:0.9 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

2.429 

0.959 

1.349 

0.057 

4.64 

1:1.5 

15 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

Dec.  25-June  17 
Jan.  22-Jan.  21 
Feb.  19-Feb.  18 
Meh.  19-Mch.  18 
Apr.  16-Apr.  15 
May  14-May  13 

3.274 
2.790 
2.358 
2.001 
1.809 
0.548 

1.013 
0.886 
0.851 
0.876 
0.877 
0.235 

2.093 
1.761 
1.388 
1.027 
0.846 
0.286 

0.086 
0.073 
0.058 
0.044 
0.037 
0.012 

6.26 
5.34 
4.51 
3.83 
3.46 
1.05 

1:2.3 
1:2.2 
1:1.8 
1:1.3 
1:1.1 
1:1.3 

Average  

Dee.  25-June  17 

2.130 

0.790 

1.233 

0.052 

4.07 

1:1.7 

A.ver.  Lot  in 

Dec.  25-June  17 

2.299 

0.892 

1.292 

0.055 

4.39 

1:16 

128 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


a 

3 

<n   O 


SB 


~ 
O      CQ  rH 


:r  _ri       " 

£§      | 


Q 

o>     H 


1914] 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


129 


130 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


1914} 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


a 


£ 


fe     "*"" 

3  £ 


132 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


Medium-protein  lot  High-protein  lot 

Fasted  live  weight,  195.2  pounds  Fasted  live  weight,  181.6  pounds 

FIG.  5. — CARCASSES  OF  PIGS  7  AND  13 


1914] 


INFLUENCE  OF  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


133 


r- 


o 


134 


BULLETIN  No.  168 


[March, 


1914] 


INFLUENCE  OP  PROTEIN  ON  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  PIGS 


135 


O 
DC 
0. 


LJ 

I 


2 

3 


or 

CL 


•a 

a 


DC 
0- 


UJ 

H 

g 


O 

£ 


UNIVERSITY 

Q.630.7IL6B  C001 

BULLETIN.  URBANA 
166-181  1914-15 


30112019528436 


,>     -? 


•UtffS 
L 


, 


-     i 

I 

?«••'*• 


